Portlanders protest council tax rise

Dorset Echo: John Thorner says he is prepared to go to prison rather than pay the council tax increase John Thorner says he is prepared to go to prison rather than pay the council tax increase

BATTLE lines are being drawn up on Portland as islanders rally against a decision to hike up the council tax precept by almost 1,000 per cent.

One man says he is prepared to go to prison rather than pay the increase.

Residents are angered by the lack of consultation over the move, which town councillors say will generate £500,000 for the island and help it gain ‘financial independence’ by providing more services and funding for communities.

The rise will mean the bill for a Band D property will go up from about £14 a year to £150.

While many support an increase in the council’s share of the bill, such a huge rise which was voted through by councillors last week has been described as ‘ludicrous’ which will hit struggling families.

Councillors will explain the thinking behind the decision at a public meeting next week.

But some residents hope the decision can be overturned.

Petitions are being prepared and a Facebook group, ‘The People of Portland Against the Precept’, has been set up with 300 supporters.

‘Fifth generation’ Portlander and former town councillor John Thorner started the Facebook group and has declared he would go to prison in protest.

The 56-year-old disabled resident said the ‘spirit of Portland’ was alive and well as people join together to fight the decision.

Mr Thorner is prepared to pay a small amount extra but suggested there were grants available to fund the things the town council wants to do with the money from raising the precept.

“I would rather go to prison than pay this precept to a council which to me is a toothless tiger,” Mr Thorner said.

Resident Penny McCartney said councillors were not representing the best interests of local people.

Town councillor Sylvia Bradley, who voted against the increase at a meeting in December, said she was ‘disgusted’, as people |were struggling to pay household bills.

She added: “The rise is ludicrous. We want to take back services on Portland which were taken from us in 1974 but not like this.”

Another councillor, Ray Nowak, said he voted for the proposal in December but on the basis that there was going to be further discussion up until budget setting next month.

He said residents weren’t made aware of the proposal because it wasn’t available to view anywhere.

Coun Nowak said: “The proposal has some merit but there’s a lot of work to do into how it would become reality.

“But residents think this has been done behind their backs.”

Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal, saying it had to be done now to raise money to avoid the council being ‘capped’ by government next year.

He said there were elections next year where residents could vote off councillors if they didn’t agree with them.

Coun Munro said there was no consultation as the process to set the precept is done in the same way each year, with elected councillors making decisions at advertised meetings.

He admitted the town council suffered ‘communication’ problems as the website has not been updated since last year.

Comments (181)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:05am Mon 20 Jan 14

Get a grip says...

Let them eat Portland dough cake

Joke
Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke Get a grip

9:00am Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal.

Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.
Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled. David_divenghy2

9:12am Mon 20 Jan 14

Lynney of Portland says...

I voted against the town council when we had a referendum some years ago as we new this was going too happen .The problem is having 4members of one very strong family on the council they are certainly not for the good of Portland .hopefully it can be resolved as I am sure the people of Weymouth would be up in arms if this was happening to them .
I voted against the town council when we had a referendum some years ago as we new this was going too happen .The problem is having 4members of one very strong family on the council they are certainly not for the good of Portland .hopefully it can be resolved as I am sure the people of Weymouth would be up in arms if this was happening to them . Lynney of Portland

9:14am Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.
There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.[/p][/quote]There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom. t.munro

9:27am Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.
There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.
Difficult to tell Tim, given the council has not bothered to update the minutes for over 6 months and we don't know who or how many voted what? In any event it is clearly not in the interest of democracy and transparency to have four people of the same family on a small council board.

Did you also know that because of the greed of landlords and ESTATE AGENTS, housing benefit won't cover many hyped -up rents on the Island and those disabled or on other benefits have to use their benefit money to pay the difference leaving them with virtually nothing .
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.[/p][/quote]There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.[/p][/quote]Difficult to tell Tim, given the council has not bothered to update the minutes for over 6 months and we don't know who or how many voted what? In any event it is clearly not in the interest of democracy and transparency to have four people of the same family on a small council board. Did you also know that because of the greed of landlords and ESTATE AGENTS, housing benefit won't cover many hyped -up rents on the Island and those disabled or on other benefits have to use their benefit money to pay the difference leaving them with virtually nothing . David_divenghy2

9:29am Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

As you are on here Mr Munro perhaps you could furnish us with a copy of who voted how and precisely what the money is for?
As you are on here Mr Munro perhaps you could furnish us with a copy of who voted how and precisely what the money is for? David_divenghy2

9:45am Mon 20 Jan 14

DanWey says...

Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?
Why do Portlanders currently pay so little? DanWey

9:50am Mon 20 Jan 14

elloello1980 says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
As you are on here Mr Munro perhaps you could furnish us with a copy of who voted how and precisely what the money is for?
This could get interesting, if Mr Munro has the balls to answer the people...
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: As you are on here Mr Munro perhaps you could furnish us with a copy of who voted how and precisely what the money is for?[/p][/quote]This could get interesting, if Mr Munro has the balls to answer the people... elloello1980

9:53am Mon 20 Jan 14

elloello1980 says...

DanWey wrote:
Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?
They pay two sets of council tax, because they're special
[quote][p][bold]DanWey[/bold] wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?[/p][/quote]They pay two sets of council tax, because they're special elloello1980

10:10am Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

DanWey wrote:
Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?
Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC.
[quote][p][bold]DanWey[/bold] wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?[/p][/quote]Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC. portlandboy

10:17am Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

portlandboy wrote:
DanWey wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?
Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC.
Not true we do not require the say so of WPBC.
But we a currently beholden to them, because they provide,with DCC the appalling services on Portland.
[quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWey[/bold] wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?[/p][/quote]Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC.[/p][/quote]Not true we do not require the say so of WPBC. But we a currently beholden to them, because they provide,with DCC the appalling services on Portland. t.munro

10:18am Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.
There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.
Difficult to tell Tim, given the council has not bothered to update the minutes for over 6 months and we don't know who or how many voted what? In any event it is clearly not in the interest of democracy and transparency to have four people of the same family on a small council board. Did you also know that because of the greed of landlords and ESTATE AGENTS, housing benefit won't cover many hyped -up rents on the Island and those disabled or on other benefits have to use their benefit money to pay the difference leaving them with virtually nothing .
I have posted the proposal I made on the Bred and Born
It was also given to the Echo in December after the decision was made.
I am happy to email it to you or anybody else that has not
seen it. You will need to contact me a give me your email address
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.[/p][/quote]There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.[/p][/quote]Difficult to tell Tim, given the council has not bothered to update the minutes for over 6 months and we don't know who or how many voted what? In any event it is clearly not in the interest of democracy and transparency to have four people of the same family on a small council board. Did you also know that because of the greed of landlords and ESTATE AGENTS, housing benefit won't cover many hyped -up rents on the Island and those disabled or on other benefits have to use their benefit money to pay the difference leaving them with virtually nothing .[/p][/quote]I have posted the proposal I made on the Bred and Born It was also given to the Echo in December after the decision was made. I am happy to email it to you or anybody else that has not seen it. You will need to contact me a give me your email address t.munro

10:20am Mon 20 Jan 14

17th Earl of Fortuneswell says...

t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.
There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.
Mr Monro,
On the other comments section regarding this story I have asked you a question which you appear to be ignoring. You claim that the vote was carried unanimously. This story contradicts this, 1 Cllr saying they voted against and 1 saying they voted for a different version of the proposal. Now somebody is being mendacious. Who ?
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.[/p][/quote]There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.[/p][/quote]Mr Monro, On the other comments section regarding this story I have asked you a question which you appear to be ignoring. You claim that the vote was carried unanimously. This story contradicts this, 1 Cllr saying they voted against and 1 saying they voted for a different version of the proposal. Now somebody is being mendacious. Who ? 17th Earl of Fortuneswell

10:26am Mon 20 Jan 14

Christine Melsom says...

We at Isitfair have been writing continuosly to the DCLG regarding the rises in Parish and Town Council precepts. Your case is on our website forum for discussion. www.isitfair.co.uk believe me you are not the only community fighting this backdoor rise in council tax. Many of these small councils have had their grant from the District council altered and cut because of the change in council tax benefit, but this would give a very small rise in precept.
Of course there are some people who have no objection to a council tax rise. They tend to be the wealthy and those not paying any council tax. As with all things, the middle section takes the punishment.
Eric Pickles must, and very soon, cap these opportunisitic councils run by councillors who seem to have no idea how the other other half manages to live.
We at Isitfair have been writing continuosly to the DCLG regarding the rises in Parish and Town Council precepts. Your case is on our website forum for discussion. www.isitfair.co.uk believe me you are not the only community fighting this backdoor rise in council tax. Many of these small councils have had their grant from the District council altered and cut because of the change in council tax benefit, but this would give a very small rise in precept. Of course there are some people who have no objection to a council tax rise. They tend to be the wealthy and those not paying any council tax. As with all things, the middle section takes the punishment. Eric Pickles must, and very soon, cap these opportunisitic councils run by councillors who seem to have no idea how the other other half manages to live. Christine Melsom

10:30am Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

t.munro wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
DanWey wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?
Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC.
Not true we do not require the say so of WPBC.
But we a currently beholden to them, because they provide,with DCC the appalling services on Portland.
Mr Munro, you have failed to answer my questions above, can we please see the details of who voted for what and precisely what this money is meant for? As you are the person who put this forward, I suspect you have all this to hand instantly.

On the similar note , could you tell me whose job it is to administer the town council web site which has been left neglected for over 6 months and do they, or have they , received any monies for administering it?
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWey[/bold] wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?[/p][/quote]Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC.[/p][/quote]Not true we do not require the say so of WPBC. But we a currently beholden to them, because they provide,with DCC the appalling services on Portland.[/p][/quote]Mr Munro, you have failed to answer my questions above, can we please see the details of who voted for what and precisely what this money is meant for? As you are the person who put this forward, I suspect you have all this to hand instantly. On the similar note , could you tell me whose job it is to administer the town council web site which has been left neglected for over 6 months and do they, or have they , received any monies for administering it? David_divenghy2

10:32am Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

The report (currently) says:
"The rise will mean the bill for a Band D property will go up from about £14 a year to £150"
Why can't the Ohec reporters manage to get ALL the facts in one report, rather than readers having to piece together the stories from the last few days editions? The way this reads, Portlanders only pay £14 per year, with a rise due to make it £150, but they also pay the standard Council Tax charges as well. Is it too much to ask that the facts are all included, so that people can see the real reason for the anger over the increase?
The report (currently) says: "The rise will mean the bill for a Band D property will go up from about £14 a year to £150" Why can't the Ohec reporters manage to get ALL the facts in one report, rather than readers having to piece together the stories from the last few days editions? The way this reads, Portlanders only pay £14 per year, with a rise due to make it £150, but they also pay the standard Council Tax charges as well. Is it too much to ask that the facts are all included, so that people can see the real reason for the anger over the increase? portlandboy

10:39am Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.
There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.
Difficult to tell Tim, given the council has not bothered to update the minutes for over 6 months and we don't know who or how many voted what? In any event it is clearly not in the interest of democracy and transparency to have four people of the same family on a small council board. Did you also know that because of the greed of landlords and ESTATE AGENTS, housing benefit won't cover many hyped -up rents on the Island and those disabled or on other benefits have to use their benefit money to pay the difference leaving them with virtually nothing .
I have posted the proposal I made on the Bred and Born
It was also given to the Echo in December after the decision was made.
I am happy to email it to you or anybody else that has not
seen it. You will need to contact me a give me your email address
I have no idea what bred and born is to be honest. Why is all what i ask for not on the official town council website already? I cannot seem to find it?

If you can kindly post us all a link to that information here so everyone can see it and save time, then you can also post who voted what in a comment , again so everyone can see it.

If you would be so kind.

Thank you.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.[/p][/quote]There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.[/p][/quote]Difficult to tell Tim, given the council has not bothered to update the minutes for over 6 months and we don't know who or how many voted what? In any event it is clearly not in the interest of democracy and transparency to have four people of the same family on a small council board. Did you also know that because of the greed of landlords and ESTATE AGENTS, housing benefit won't cover many hyped -up rents on the Island and those disabled or on other benefits have to use their benefit money to pay the difference leaving them with virtually nothing .[/p][/quote]I have posted the proposal I made on the Bred and Born It was also given to the Echo in December after the decision was made. I am happy to email it to you or anybody else that has not seen it. You will need to contact me a give me your email address[/p][/quote]I have no idea what bred and born is to be honest. Why is all what i ask for not on the official town council website already? I cannot seem to find it? If you can kindly post us all a link to that information here so everyone can see it and save time, then you can also post who voted what in a comment , again so everyone can see it. If you would be so kind. Thank you. David_divenghy2

10:55am Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

17th Earl of Fortuneswell wrote:
t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.
There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.
Mr Monro, On the other comments section regarding this story I have asked you a question which you appear to be ignoring. You claim that the vote was carried unanimously. This story contradicts this, 1 Cllr saying they voted against and 1 saying they voted for a different version of the proposal. Now somebody is being mendacious. Who ?
There was only one proposal, with one amendment, the amendment being that no more than 10% should be spent on administering the precept.
My recollection was that one councillor voted against the amendment , which was carried. The amended proposal was voted on and all councillors voted for. Cllr Bradley certainly voted against the amendment. Two councillors
Cllr Barton who was unwell and Cllr Reynolds where absent.
As is usual practice, unless a recorded vote is called for, the minutes will only reflect if the item is resolved or not.
[quote][p][bold]17th Earl of Fortuneswell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.[/p][/quote]There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.[/p][/quote]Mr Monro, On the other comments section regarding this story I have asked you a question which you appear to be ignoring. You claim that the vote was carried unanimously. This story contradicts this, 1 Cllr saying they voted against and 1 saying they voted for a different version of the proposal. Now somebody is being mendacious. Who ?[/p][/quote]There was only one proposal, with one amendment, the amendment being that no more than 10% should be spent on administering the precept. My recollection was that one councillor voted against the amendment , which was carried. The amended proposal was voted on and all councillors voted for. Cllr Bradley certainly voted against the amendment. Two councillors Cllr Barton who was unwell and Cllr Reynolds where absent. As is usual practice, unless a recorded vote is called for, the minutes will only reflect if the item is resolved or not. t.munro

11:01am Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

t.munro wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
DanWey wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?
Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC.
Not true we do not require the say so of WPBC.
But we a currently beholden to them, because they provide,with DCC the appalling services on Portland.
So Mr Munro, when the PTC hold their monthly Planning meeting, why is it that every decision, except maybe the odd tree crowning application, is delegated to WPBC. If PTC have the power to make decisions, why don't they use it instead of wasting a further month or two letting WPBC planners decide on Portland planning matters?
If the PTC cannot decide on their own planning matters, why keep having the monthly meeting and incurring the expense claims? There is the first opportunity to save some of the expenditure that the precept rise is needed for
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWey[/bold] wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?[/p][/quote]Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC.[/p][/quote]Not true we do not require the say so of WPBC. But we a currently beholden to them, because they provide,with DCC the appalling services on Portland.[/p][/quote]So Mr Munro, when the PTC hold their monthly Planning meeting, why is it that every decision, except maybe the odd tree crowning application, is delegated to WPBC. If PTC have the power to make decisions, why don't they use it instead of wasting a further month or two letting WPBC planners decide on Portland planning matters? If the PTC cannot decide on their own planning matters, why keep having the monthly meeting and incurring the expense claims? There is the first opportunity to save some of the expenditure that the precept rise is needed for portlandboy

11:02am Mon 20 Jan 14

shy talk says...

Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening. shy talk

11:06am Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

shy talk wrote:
Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four. portlandboy

11:14am Mon 20 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote:
Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere.

What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
[quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand. Rocksalt

11:19am Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

portlandboy wrote:
t.munro wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
DanWey wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?
Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC.
Not true we do not require the say so of WPBC. But we a currently beholden to them, because they provide,with DCC the appalling services on Portland.
So Mr Munro, when the PTC hold their monthly Planning meeting, why is it that every decision, except maybe the odd tree crowning application, is delegated to WPBC. If PTC have the power to make decisions, why don't they use it instead of wasting a further month or two letting WPBC planners decide on Portland planning matters? If the PTC cannot decide on their own planning matters, why keep having the monthly meeting and incurring the expense claims? There is the first opportunity to save some of the expenditure that the precept rise is needed for
PTC planning, PTC are advisory only, the borough council are the planning authority. It is hoped that as localism is driven forward planning will become part of the Town councils function. Currently is just a voice, that must be considered by WPBC. Recent instance, the voice of the town council planning committee was a major factor in the WPBC refusal of the Academy project.
[quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWey[/bold] wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?[/p][/quote]Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC.[/p][/quote]Not true we do not require the say so of WPBC. But we a currently beholden to them, because they provide,with DCC the appalling services on Portland.[/p][/quote]So Mr Munro, when the PTC hold their monthly Planning meeting, why is it that every decision, except maybe the odd tree crowning application, is delegated to WPBC. If PTC have the power to make decisions, why don't they use it instead of wasting a further month or two letting WPBC planners decide on Portland planning matters? If the PTC cannot decide on their own planning matters, why keep having the monthly meeting and incurring the expense claims? There is the first opportunity to save some of the expenditure that the precept rise is needed for[/p][/quote]PTC planning, PTC are advisory only, the borough council are the planning authority. It is hoped that as localism is driven forward planning will become part of the Town councils function. Currently is just a voice, that must be considered by WPBC. Recent instance, the voice of the town council planning committee was a major factor in the WPBC refusal of the Academy project. t.munro

11:21am Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote:
Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere.

What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid.

I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on? David_divenghy2

11:22am Mon 20 Jan 14

17th Earl of Fortuneswell says...

t.munro wrote:
17th Earl of Fortuneswell wrote:
t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.
There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.
Mr Monro, On the other comments section regarding this story I have asked you a question which you appear to be ignoring. You claim that the vote was carried unanimously. This story contradicts this, 1 Cllr saying they voted against and 1 saying they voted for a different version of the proposal. Now somebody is being mendacious. Who ?
There was only one proposal, with one amendment, the amendment being that no more than 10% should be spent on administering the precept. My recollection was that one councillor voted against the amendment , which was carried. The amended proposal was voted on and all councillors voted for. Cllr Bradley certainly voted against the amendment. Two councillors Cllr Barton who was unwell and Cllr Reynolds where absent. As is usual practice, unless a recorded vote is called for, the minutes will only reflect if the item is resolved or not.
Thank you for tthat. Not quite as cut & dried as you initially claimed !
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]17th Earl of Fortuneswell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Coun Tim Munro put forward the proposal. Time to vote out all of the Munro's, the little Fifedom needs to be dismantled.[/p][/quote]There are 14 councillors on PTC, they each have a vote, to pass a proposal you require a majority, if the vote is split the Mayor Cllr Les Ames has the casting vote. Fail to understand how you interpret this as a fiefdom.[/p][/quote]Mr Monro, On the other comments section regarding this story I have asked you a question which you appear to be ignoring. You claim that the vote was carried unanimously. This story contradicts this, 1 Cllr saying they voted against and 1 saying they voted for a different version of the proposal. Now somebody is being mendacious. Who ?[/p][/quote]There was only one proposal, with one amendment, the amendment being that no more than 10% should be spent on administering the precept. My recollection was that one councillor voted against the amendment , which was carried. The amended proposal was voted on and all councillors voted for. Cllr Bradley certainly voted against the amendment. Two councillors Cllr Barton who was unwell and Cllr Reynolds where absent. As is usual practice, unless a recorded vote is called for, the minutes will only reflect if the item is resolved or not.[/p][/quote]Thank you for tthat. Not quite as cut & dried as you initially claimed ! 17th Earl of Fortuneswell

11:50am Mon 20 Jan 14

elloello1980 says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you.

Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer.

You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked.

You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless! elloello1980

11:54am Mon 20 Jan 14

Lynney of Portland says...

What a lot of rubbish born and bred on Facebook is exactly that to belong to this you must be born on Portland in this day and age a vast amount of people living on Portland were not born here so why put it on that site .Seems to me any excuse for not publishing properly
What a lot of rubbish born and bred on Facebook is exactly that to belong to this you must be born on Portland in this day and age a vast amount of people living on Portland were not born here so why put it on that site .Seems to me any excuse for not publishing properly Lynney of Portland

11:57am Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

t.munro wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
t.munro wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
DanWey wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?
Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC.
Not true we do not require the say so of WPBC. But we a currently beholden to them, because they provide,with DCC the appalling services on Portland.
So Mr Munro, when the PTC hold their monthly Planning meeting, why is it that every decision, except maybe the odd tree crowning application, is delegated to WPBC. If PTC have the power to make decisions, why don't they use it instead of wasting a further month or two letting WPBC planners decide on Portland planning matters? If the PTC cannot decide on their own planning matters, why keep having the monthly meeting and incurring the expense claims? There is the first opportunity to save some of the expenditure that the precept rise is needed for
PTC planning, PTC are advisory only, the borough council are the planning authority. It is hoped that as localism is driven forward planning will become part of the Town councils function. Currently is just a voice, that must be considered by WPBC. Recent instance, the voice of the town council planning committee was a major factor in the WPBC refusal of the Academy project.
PTC Planning is "... just a voice, that must be considered by WPBC.
Would that be in the same way that the voice of Portland residents should be considered by the PTC when important decisions are being taken?
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWey[/bold] wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?[/p][/quote]Portlanders pay the standard council tax at the same rates as Weymouth residents PLUS the precept payment which is currently £14 per year, but increasing to £150 per year. Portland residents have to pay the extra on top of the normal council tax to support their own Town Council which, ironically, has no ability to do anything without the say-so from W&PBC.[/p][/quote]Not true we do not require the say so of WPBC. But we a currently beholden to them, because they provide,with DCC the appalling services on Portland.[/p][/quote]So Mr Munro, when the PTC hold their monthly Planning meeting, why is it that every decision, except maybe the odd tree crowning application, is delegated to WPBC. If PTC have the power to make decisions, why don't they use it instead of wasting a further month or two letting WPBC planners decide on Portland planning matters? If the PTC cannot decide on their own planning matters, why keep having the monthly meeting and incurring the expense claims? There is the first opportunity to save some of the expenditure that the precept rise is needed for[/p][/quote]PTC planning, PTC are advisory only, the borough council are the planning authority. It is hoped that as localism is driven forward planning will become part of the Town councils function. Currently is just a voice, that must be considered by WPBC. Recent instance, the voice of the town council planning committee was a major factor in the WPBC refusal of the Academy project.[/p][/quote]PTC Planning is "... just a voice, that must be considered by WPBC. Would that be in the same way that the voice of Portland residents should be considered by the PTC when important decisions are being taken? portlandboy

11:59am Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you.

Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer.

You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked.

You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-)

What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?.

I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict?

Out of interest how did they vote?
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote? David_divenghy2

12:03pm Mon 20 Jan 14

elloello1980 says...

stay strong, stay as one, protest against this joke-tax!
stay strong, stay as one, protest against this joke-tax! elloello1980

12:04pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Lynney of Portland wrote:
What a lot of rubbish born and bred on Facebook is exactly that to belong to this you must be born on Portland in this day and age a vast amount of people living on Portland were not born here so why put it on that site .Seems to me any excuse for not publishing properly
Lynney
I gave it to the Echo in December.
I am happy to post anywhere you or others wish.
[quote][p][bold]Lynney of Portland[/bold] wrote: What a lot of rubbish born and bred on Facebook is exactly that to belong to this you must be born on Portland in this day and age a vast amount of people living on Portland were not born here so why put it on that site .Seems to me any excuse for not publishing properly[/p][/quote]Lynney I gave it to the Echo in December. I am happy to post anywhere you or others wish. t.munro

12:05pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Dave Aitch says...

Cant find the FB page.
Cant find the FB page. Dave Aitch

12:12pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

Dave Aitch wrote:
Cant find the FB page.
Here's a link, but it is a closed group. You would need to request membership to see the posts:
https://www.facebook
.com/groups/20398664
9697361/
[quote][p][bold]Dave Aitch[/bold] wrote: Cant find the FB page.[/p][/quote]Here's a link, but it is a closed group. You would need to request membership to see the posts: https://www.facebook .com/groups/20398664 9697361/ portlandboy

12:13pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?
Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1
Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost.
The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland.
It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off.
When the only question is are you happy with what your getting?
If not what are you doing.
I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?[/p][/quote]Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air t.munro

12:24pm Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?
Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1
Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost.
The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland.
It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off.
When the only question is are you happy with what your getting?
If not what are you doing.
I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air
There is no conspiracy theory My Munro, the fact is Four members of your family are on that council and voting on each others proposals. Nobody in their right mind can say that is democratic.

You said there are 14 Councillors, only 12 voted, on such a serious issue that will badly effect many, it should have required a full council vote be recorded. I am not slagging you off Mr Munro, I am calling this council wholly undemocratic and if any other family had 4 of their own on the same council voting on each others proposals, I would say the same. I don't know you and i have no interests that conflict with you.

This council needs to be dissolved straight away and a re-election forced for a more balanced panel. You have also still not answered my questions on the official website, I would be grateful if you could.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?[/p][/quote]Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air[/p][/quote]There is no conspiracy theory My Munro, the fact is Four members of your family are on that council and voting on each others proposals. Nobody in their right mind can say that is democratic. You said there are 14 Councillors, only 12 voted, on such a serious issue that will badly effect many, it should have required a full council vote be recorded. I am not slagging you off Mr Munro, I am calling this council wholly undemocratic and if any other family had 4 of their own on the same council voting on each others proposals, I would say the same. I don't know you and i have no interests that conflict with you. This council needs to be dissolved straight away and a re-election forced for a more balanced panel. You have also still not answered my questions on the official website, I would be grateful if you could. David_divenghy2

12:25pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Bollard says...

It arrogant decisions like this that make people turn against councillors. I think most people would be happy to pay a bit extra to try and improve things but an almost 1,000 per cent increase is never going to be welcomed.
Will we get a 1,000 per cent improvement? I think not!
Has any one contacted the Local Government Ombudsman yet?
It arrogant decisions like this that make people turn against councillors. I think most people would be happy to pay a bit extra to try and improve things but an almost 1,000 per cent increase is never going to be welcomed. Will we get a 1,000 per cent improvement? I think not! Has any one contacted the Local Government Ombudsman yet? Bollard

12:35pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Tillydog says...

So Foursite according to Mr Munroe you are a Liar, What else have you lied about?, Cant be the communication with the public,as he readily admits that they have not the capacity to do so without a contracted web host. something the people of Portland should have been receiving with the precept they already pay.
..Foursite, don't mention the Approx Budget Wages/Admin £48.000.10%max, £30,000 for a caretaker. YES £30.000
Other expenses excluding wages £15,000 and Neighborhood plan £5,000.Sounds a bit dodgy to me Portland.
Dog bless you all.
So Foursite according to Mr Munroe you are a Liar, What else have you lied about?, Cant be the communication with the public,as he readily admits that they have not the capacity to do so without a contracted web host. something the people of Portland should have been receiving with the precept they already pay. ..Foursite, don't mention the Approx Budget Wages/Admin £48.000.10%max, £30,000 for a caretaker. YES £30.000 Other expenses excluding wages £15,000 and Neighborhood plan £5,000.Sounds a bit dodgy to me Portland. Dog bless you all. Tillydog

12:38pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Bollard wrote:
It arrogant decisions like this that make people turn against councillors. I think most people would be happy to pay a bit extra to try and improve things but an almost 1,000 per cent increase is never going to be welcomed.
Will we get a 1,000 per cent improvement? I think not!
Has any one contacted the Local Government Ombudsman yet?
20 pence a day for most people that pay council tax.
Nothing for those that don't.
Rumour has it that Eric Pickels may intervene.
Job done then, a conservative minister telling elected Portland councillors what to do. That's Independace for you, all down hill from here.
[quote][p][bold]Bollard[/bold] wrote: It arrogant decisions like this that make people turn against councillors. I think most people would be happy to pay a bit extra to try and improve things but an almost 1,000 per cent increase is never going to be welcomed. Will we get a 1,000 per cent improvement? I think not! Has any one contacted the Local Government Ombudsman yet?[/p][/quote]20 pence a day for most people that pay council tax. Nothing for those that don't. Rumour has it that Eric Pickels may intervene. Job done then, a conservative minister telling elected Portland councillors what to do. That's Independace for you, all down hill from here. t.munro

12:41pm Mon 20 Jan 14

elloello1980 says...

t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?
Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air
"slagging me off"

You're not on Jeremy Kyle, you're speaking to those that you're asking money from!
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?[/p][/quote]Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air[/p][/quote]"slagging me off" You're not on Jeremy Kyle, you're speaking to those that you're asking money from! elloello1980

12:48pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

When the precept was first levied, it was purely for the PTC to be kept as a body. Seems like the charge is now being diluted and increased to support a lot more than the 'operational' concept of the PTC, with money being paid for wages and community projects.
The operation of the PTC (ie the councillors and the building they use) should be the only thing the precept is used for, and that keeps things simple.
If the PTC believe that they need funding for any other reasons, they should ask the WPBC for the money out of the standard council tax budget
When the precept was first levied, it was purely for the PTC to be kept as a body. Seems like the charge is now being diluted and increased to support a lot more than the 'operational' concept of the PTC, with money being paid for wages and community projects. The operation of the PTC (ie the councillors and the building they use) should be the only thing the precept is used for, and that keeps things simple. If the PTC believe that they need funding for any other reasons, they should ask the WPBC for the money out of the standard council tax budget portlandboy

12:51pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Tillydog wrote:
So Foursite according to Mr Munroe you are a Liar, What else have you lied about?, Cant be the communication with the public,as he readily admits that they have not the capacity to do so without a contracted web host. something the people of Portland should have been receiving with the precept they already pay.
..Foursite, don't mention the Approx Budget Wages/Admin £48.000.10%max, £30,000 for a caretaker. YES £30.000
Other expenses excluding wages £15,000 and Neighborhood plan £5,000.Sounds a bit dodgy to me Portland.
Dog bless you all.
The current wage bill for the clerk is much less
The council decided that no more than 10% could be spent on wages, not must. There was a realisation that if we are going to invite communities to direct spending in their own areas, there may have to be a person to assist in the applications and the delivery, so sensibly some money was budgeted for that. You already have the caretaker Rob Lawrence, that has done a fantastic job around the Island, we have trialled that for 6 months and where planning to have it as a permanent roll. The money is for wages, waste disposal equipment, training etc, neighbour hood plan is budgeted at £6.500 not £5.000. This is for the approx two years consultation as to how the residents want to see Portland in the future. Bill Buchanan is managing the consultation
Fact is there was no mention or discussion about Vendilis the building referred to. I am sure Foresite will confirm that, I think he was making a point and someone else took it literally, it was to that person is was responding.
[quote][p][bold]Tillydog[/bold] wrote: So Foursite according to Mr Munroe you are a Liar, What else have you lied about?, Cant be the communication with the public,as he readily admits that they have not the capacity to do so without a contracted web host. something the people of Portland should have been receiving with the precept they already pay. ..Foursite, don't mention the Approx Budget Wages/Admin £48.000.10%max, £30,000 for a caretaker. YES £30.000 Other expenses excluding wages £15,000 and Neighborhood plan £5,000.Sounds a bit dodgy to me Portland. Dog bless you all.[/p][/quote]The current wage bill for the clerk is much less The council decided that no more than 10% could be spent on wages, not must. There was a realisation that if we are going to invite communities to direct spending in their own areas, there may have to be a person to assist in the applications and the delivery, so sensibly some money was budgeted for that. You already have the caretaker Rob Lawrence, that has done a fantastic job around the Island, we have trialled that for 6 months and where planning to have it as a permanent roll. The money is for wages, waste disposal equipment, training etc, neighbour hood plan is budgeted at £6.500 not £5.000. This is for the approx two years consultation as to how the residents want to see Portland in the future. Bill Buchanan is managing the consultation Fact is there was no mention or discussion about Vendilis the building referred to. I am sure Foresite will confirm that, I think he was making a point and someone else took it literally, it was to that person is was responding. t.munro

12:52pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Foursite says...

Tillydog, I have no reason to lie,I was at the meeting and let the people know what I and many other people saw and heard.They were discussing who owned the houses at the Verne, no doubt about it, and can be verified by others that were there.You can invite other Councillors to have their say on the issue but it appears they do not wish to speak out at this moment in time.They will,perhaps when they get the story right. 30k for a caretaker sounds extreme in today's austerity led Government's idea.But they may have another member of the family earmarked for the job.
Tillydog, I have no reason to lie,I was at the meeting and let the people know what I and many other people saw and heard.They were discussing who owned the houses at the Verne, no doubt about it, and can be verified by others that were there.You can invite other Councillors to have their say on the issue but it appears they do not wish to speak out at this moment in time.They will,perhaps when they get the story right. 30k for a caretaker sounds extreme in today's austerity led Government's idea.But they may have another member of the family earmarked for the job. Foursite

1:14pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Foursite wrote:
Tillydog, I have no reason to lie,I was at the meeting and let the people know what I and many other people saw and heard.They were discussing who owned the houses at the Verne, no doubt about it, and can be verified by others that were there.You can invite other Councillors to have their say on the issue but it appears they do not wish to speak out at this moment in time.They will,perhaps when they get the story right. 30k for a caretaker sounds extreme in today's austerity led Government's idea.But they may have another member of the family earmarked for the job.
Rob Laurence is the caretaker
The sum is to cover all cost associated. This included materials and equipment which at the beginning of the year is an unknown. The budget is whats available not what must be spent.
Foresite, I apologise, you are correct the ownership of those houses at the Verne was queried. A member of the public ask if anything could be done to bring them into habitable, Ray Nowack as the borough brief holder responded.
I have mentioned previously, I am attempting to answer as well as I can questions, I realise fully that not every body agrees with my thoughts.
The debate does not improve with nasty personal remarks.
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: Tillydog, I have no reason to lie,I was at the meeting and let the people know what I and many other people saw and heard.They were discussing who owned the houses at the Verne, no doubt about it, and can be verified by others that were there.You can invite other Councillors to have their say on the issue but it appears they do not wish to speak out at this moment in time.They will,perhaps when they get the story right. 30k for a caretaker sounds extreme in today's austerity led Government's idea.But they may have another member of the family earmarked for the job.[/p][/quote]Rob Laurence is the caretaker The sum is to cover all cost associated. This included materials and equipment which at the beginning of the year is an unknown. The budget is whats available not what must be spent. Foresite, I apologise, you are correct the ownership of those houses at the Verne was queried. A member of the public ask if anything could be done to bring them into habitable, Ray Nowack as the borough brief holder responded. I have mentioned previously, I am attempting to answer as well as I can questions, I realise fully that not every body agrees with my thoughts. The debate does not improve with nasty personal remarks. t.munro

1:16pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Get a grip says...

I do not live on Portland and I have no links to Cllr Munro or his family but have the filling two points to make.

Voters of Portland you voted for the councilllors you have, if you are unhappy with them stand yourself or at least vote for someone else.


The hard facts are that both DCC and W&PBC have to make cut backs and some services will be scrapped. So when a playground or open space on Portland is closed you will expect the Town Council to take it over. Fine but they will need money to do so.

Disagree if you please but facts are facts
I do not live on Portland and I have no links to Cllr Munro or his family but have the filling two points to make. Voters of Portland you voted for the councilllors you have, if you are unhappy with them stand yourself or at least vote for someone else. The hard facts are that both DCC and W&PBC have to make cut backs and some services will be scrapped. So when a playground or open space on Portland is closed you will expect the Town Council to take it over. Fine but they will need money to do so. Disagree if you please but facts are facts Get a grip

1:19pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Latest rumour,
That Your Conservative MP is going to intervene and take it up with Eric Pickles.
If they do intervene that will be the end of Portlands ability to make decisions
(Good or bad) gone.
Without the Town Council and this kind of debate, our only hope is Weymouth.
Then we really are doomed.
Right or wrong we should resist outside interference, Right or wrong this is a Portland debate.
Latest rumour, That Your Conservative MP is going to intervene and take it up with Eric Pickles. If they do intervene that will be the end of Portlands ability to make decisions (Good or bad) gone. Without the Town Council and this kind of debate, our only hope is Weymouth. Then we really are doomed. Right or wrong we should resist outside interference, Right or wrong this is a Portland debate. t.munro

1:21pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Wilbraham says...

t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?
Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1
Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost.
The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland.
It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off.
When the only question is are you happy with what your getting?
If not what are you doing.
I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air
Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?[/p][/quote]Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air[/p][/quote]Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth Wilbraham

1:26pm Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

t.munro wrote:
Latest rumour,
That Your Conservative MP is going to intervene and take it up with Eric Pickles.
If they do intervene that will be the end of Portlands ability to make decisions
(Good or bad) gone.
Without the Town Council and this kind of debate, our only hope is Weymouth.
Then we really are doomed.
Right or wrong we should resist outside interference, Right or wrong this is a Portland debate.
Good I hope he does, then we can get about re-electing a more impartial panel, not including four people of the same family , no matter who they are.. According to you Portland has little decision with the county making the big ones anyway, especially in planning etc, they only have a voice.

Trying to play the "Tory bad boy" card to scaremonger won't help either. Your last rather arrogant comment suggesting people can afford it okay makes you sound as bad.

A £150 a year precept will be nearly £13 a month to the average family bill. That is enough to make a big difference to some. We are not all estate agents Tim.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: Latest rumour, That Your Conservative MP is going to intervene and take it up with Eric Pickles. If they do intervene that will be the end of Portlands ability to make decisions (Good or bad) gone. Without the Town Council and this kind of debate, our only hope is Weymouth. Then we really are doomed. Right or wrong we should resist outside interference, Right or wrong this is a Portland debate.[/p][/quote]Good I hope he does, then we can get about re-electing a more impartial panel, not including four people of the same family , no matter who they are.. According to you Portland has little decision with the county making the big ones anyway, especially in planning etc, they only have a voice. Trying to play the "Tory bad boy" card to scaremonger won't help either. Your last rather arrogant comment suggesting people can afford it okay makes you sound as bad. A £150 a year precept will be nearly £13 a month to the average family bill. That is enough to make a big difference to some. We are not all estate agents Tim. David_divenghy2

1:28pm Mon 20 Jan 14

17th Earl of Fortuneswell says...

Get a grip wrote:
I do not live on Portland and I have no links to Cllr Munro or his family but have the filling two points to make. Voters of Portland you voted for the councilllors you have, if you are unhappy with them stand yourself or at least vote for someone else. The hard facts are that both DCC and W&PBC have to make cut backs and some services will be scrapped. So when a playground or open space on Portland is closed you will expect the Town Council to take it over. Fine but they will need money to do so. Disagree if you please but facts are facts
Couldn't agree more re voter apathy. I do so hope that the next election will bring about changes and it will be up to any prospective candidates to remind the voters of this divisive issue.
Your other point I cannot agree on. As soon as W&PBC see that PTC have a sum of money swilling around they will cut out services to the Island accordingly knowing that we will pick up the tab and so Portlanders will in effect be paying twice and Weymouth gets the best of the services yet again.
[quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: I do not live on Portland and I have no links to Cllr Munro or his family but have the filling two points to make. Voters of Portland you voted for the councilllors you have, if you are unhappy with them stand yourself or at least vote for someone else. The hard facts are that both DCC and W&PBC have to make cut backs and some services will be scrapped. So when a playground or open space on Portland is closed you will expect the Town Council to take it over. Fine but they will need money to do so. Disagree if you please but facts are facts[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more re voter apathy. I do so hope that the next election will bring about changes and it will be up to any prospective candidates to remind the voters of this divisive issue. Your other point I cannot agree on. As soon as W&PBC see that PTC have a sum of money swilling around they will cut out services to the Island accordingly knowing that we will pick up the tab and so Portlanders will in effect be paying twice and Weymouth gets the best of the services yet again. 17th Earl of Fortuneswell

1:28pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Wilbraham wrote:
t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?
Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1
Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost.
The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland.
It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off.
When the only question is are you happy with what your getting?
If not what are you doing.
I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air
Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth
No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above.
For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse.
The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two.
There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised
No duplication and communities will decide.
[quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?[/p][/quote]Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air[/p][/quote]Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth[/p][/quote]No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above. For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse. The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two. There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised No duplication and communities will decide. t.munro

1:34pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

t.munro wrote:
Latest rumour,
That Your Conservative MP is going to intervene and take it up with Eric Pickles.
If they do intervene that will be the end of Portlands ability to make decisions
(Good or bad) gone.
Without the Town Council and this kind of debate, our only hope is Weymouth.
Then we really are doomed.
Right or wrong we should resist outside interference, Right or wrong this is a Portland debate.
You have already stated that Portland is just a voice that has to be heard by Weymouth. That is not decision-making, just having an opinion.
Portland was 'doomed' as soon as it was swallowed up by Weymouth, some 40 years ago.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: Latest rumour, That Your Conservative MP is going to intervene and take it up with Eric Pickles. If they do intervene that will be the end of Portlands ability to make decisions (Good or bad) gone. Without the Town Council and this kind of debate, our only hope is Weymouth. Then we really are doomed. Right or wrong we should resist outside interference, Right or wrong this is a Portland debate.[/p][/quote]You have already stated that Portland is just a voice that has to be heard by Weymouth. That is not decision-making, just having an opinion. Portland was 'doomed' as soon as it was swallowed up by Weymouth, some 40 years ago. portlandboy

1:35pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandresident says...

Mr Munro, if what you say is correct, and that PTC really is only an advisor to the bigger council. As we all know, WPBC doesn't listen to anyone anyway, wouldn't it make more financial sense to abolish PTC all together? After all, it is quite evident that it no longer serves any useful purpose, other than to host your family meetings?
Mr Munro, if what you say is correct, and that PTC really is only an advisor to the bigger council. As we all know, WPBC doesn't listen to anyone anyway, wouldn't it make more financial sense to abolish PTC all together? After all, it is quite evident that it no longer serves any useful purpose, other than to host your family meetings? portlandresident

1:37pm Mon 20 Jan 14

doyle52 says...

Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion.
But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments.
But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise.
There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines.
Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla .
FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.
Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery. doyle52

1:42pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Wilbraham wrote:
t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?
Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1
Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost.
The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland.
It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off.
When the only question is are you happy with what your getting?
If not what are you doing.
I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air
Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth
No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above.
For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse.
The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two.
There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised
No duplication and communities will decide.
[quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?[/p][/quote]Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air[/p][/quote]Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth[/p][/quote]No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above. For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse. The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two. There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised No duplication and communities will decide. t.munro

1:45pm Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

t.munro wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?
Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1
Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost.
The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland.
It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off.
When the only question is are you happy with what your getting?
If not what are you doing.
I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air
Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth
No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above.
For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse.
The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two.
There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised
No duplication and communities will decide.
Say's he who just duplicated his comment :-)
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?[/p][/quote]Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air[/p][/quote]Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth[/p][/quote]No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above. For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse. The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two. There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised No duplication and communities will decide.[/p][/quote]Say's he who just duplicated his comment :-) David_divenghy2

1:46pm Mon 20 Jan 14

doyle52 says...

t.munro wrote:
Latest rumour,
That Your Conservative MP is going to intervene and take it up with Eric Pickles.
If they do intervene that will be the end of Portlands ability to make decisions
(Good or bad) gone.
Without the Town Council and this kind of debate, our only hope is Weymouth.
Then we really are doomed.
Right or wrong we should resist outside interference, Right or wrong this is a Portland debate.
Yes Tim perhaps we are doomed but we were that far before this but we are lucky enough to have both councils that are both as terrible as each other and we all seem to play one off against the other as thats just a bad habit of human nature.
If you have 500k at the end of it then the other council will cut more and more each time and in each area thats just a pure fact! They certainly are not going to leave the ptc with 500k and then still provide services and then where will we be. twice as worse off another rise would come to cover the cost of the services we get from WPBC not that i see much anyway.
But doing this in the way it has been done is terrible and now we are left with the cloud that everyone is agreeing to bar you or your members.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: Latest rumour, That Your Conservative MP is going to intervene and take it up with Eric Pickles. If they do intervene that will be the end of Portlands ability to make decisions (Good or bad) gone. Without the Town Council and this kind of debate, our only hope is Weymouth. Then we really are doomed. Right or wrong we should resist outside interference, Right or wrong this is a Portland debate.[/p][/quote]Yes Tim perhaps we are doomed but we were that far before this but we are lucky enough to have both councils that are both as terrible as each other and we all seem to play one off against the other as thats just a bad habit of human nature. If you have 500k at the end of it then the other council will cut more and more each time and in each area thats just a pure fact! They certainly are not going to leave the ptc with 500k and then still provide services and then where will we be. twice as worse off another rise would come to cover the cost of the services we get from WPBC not that i see much anyway. But doing this in the way it has been done is terrible and now we are left with the cloud that everyone is agreeing to bar you or your members. doyle52

1:53pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

doyle52 wrote:
Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.
Doyle52
You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be.
Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception.
If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good.
You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community.
Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking.
[quote][p][bold]doyle52[/bold] wrote: Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.[/p][/quote]Doyle52 You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be. Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception. If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good. You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community. Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking. t.munro

1:55pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

t.munro wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?
Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1
Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost.
The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland.
It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off.
When the only question is are you happy with what your getting?
If not what are you doing.
I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air
Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth
No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above.
For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse.
The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two.
There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised
No duplication and communities will decide.
Mr Monro,
Why have the council not asked the opinions of Portlanders on these things that 'could' be offered?
It would be very easy to ask them, should the councillors decide to do a doorstep visit to a selection of it's community. Just a quick sample of a couple of hundred homes (that's less than 10 per councillor), with the simple question "Would you be prepared to pay a 1,000% increase in your precept and for that money you 'could' see a local bus service,some flowers in the public gardens and a couple of lollipop patrols.?"
The PTC could then make proposals and vote based on fairly valid community opinions, rather than having individual councillors proposing things that 'could' be deemed as corrupt or self-motivated.

'Could' is a very useful word, because it has a very open meaning, doesn't it?
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?[/p][/quote]Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air[/p][/quote]Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth[/p][/quote]No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above. For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse. The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two. There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised No duplication and communities will decide.[/p][/quote]Mr Monro, Why have the council not asked the opinions of Portlanders on these things that 'could' be offered? It would be very easy to ask them, should the councillors decide to do a doorstep visit to a selection of it's community. Just a quick sample of a couple of hundred homes (that's less than 10 per councillor), with the simple question "Would you be prepared to pay a 1,000% increase in your precept and for that money you 'could' see a local bus service,some flowers in the public gardens and a couple of lollipop patrols.?" The PTC could then make proposals and vote based on fairly valid community opinions, rather than having individual councillors proposing things that 'could' be deemed as corrupt or self-motivated. 'Could' is a very useful word, because it has a very open meaning, doesn't it? portlandboy

1:56pm Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

As you have been asked probably more than ten times by people already, but constantly avoided, i'll ask again:

Who is responsible for the town council website and is any monies paid to anyone to administer it?

Could you please post a link to a copy of the proposal (you can choose from a thousand sites free to upload it to if you must ) and not in a closed facebook group. Why it is not on the town councils website already and well before the vote is anyone's guess.


Thank you.
As you have been asked probably more than ten times by people already, but constantly avoided, i'll ask again: Who is responsible for the town council website and is any monies paid to anyone to administer it? Could you please post a link to a copy of the proposal (you can choose from a thousand sites free to upload it to if you must ) and not in a closed facebook group. Why it is not on the town councils website already and well before the vote is anyone's guess. Thank you. David_divenghy2

2:09pm Mon 20 Jan 14

drsymes says...

The Dorset for you web site states about minutes;

"Committees have meetings to make decisions on local matters. Each committee has terms of reference which set out responsibilities. The publication of committee info on the web including minutes, council meetings, agendas and reports is part of our commitment to open government".
The Dorset for you web site states about minutes; "Committees have meetings to make decisions on local matters. Each committee has terms of reference which set out responsibilities. The publication of committee info on the web including minutes, council meetings, agendas and reports is part of our commitment to open government". drsymes

2:21pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

t.munro wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?
Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1
Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost.
The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland.
It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off.
When the only question is are you happy with what your getting?
If not what are you doing.
I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air
Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth
No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above.
For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse.
The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two.
There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised
No duplication and communities will decide.
I understand the idea that PTC could step in replace a valued service if it were cut by either DCC or WPBC.

My concern is that the temptation for them to cut funding to Portland will increase. If for example, they have to make a choice between cutting a lollipop person on Portland or one in a ward without a town or parish council with cash of its own, aren't they going to chose Portland ?
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?[/p][/quote]Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air[/p][/quote]Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth[/p][/quote]No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above. For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse. The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two. There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised No duplication and communities will decide.[/p][/quote]I understand the idea that PTC could step in replace a valued service if it were cut by either DCC or WPBC. My concern is that the temptation for them to cut funding to Portland will increase. If for example, they have to make a choice between cutting a lollipop person on Portland or one in a ward without a town or parish council with cash of its own, aren't they going to chose Portland ? Rocksalt

2:31pm Mon 20 Jan 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
As you have been asked probably more than ten times by people already, but constantly avoided, i'll ask again:

Who is responsible for the town council website and is any monies paid to anyone to administer it?

Could you please post a link to a copy of the proposal (you can choose from a thousand sites free to upload it to if you must ) and not in a closed facebook group. Why it is not on the town councils website already and well before the vote is anyone's guess.


Thank you.
Do you actually live on Portland?
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: As you have been asked probably more than ten times by people already, but constantly avoided, i'll ask again: Who is responsible for the town council website and is any monies paid to anyone to administer it? Could you please post a link to a copy of the proposal (you can choose from a thousand sites free to upload it to if you must ) and not in a closed facebook group. Why it is not on the town councils website already and well before the vote is anyone's guess. Thank you.[/p][/quote]Do you actually live on Portland? woodsedge

2:31pm Mon 20 Jan 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
As you have been asked probably more than ten times by people already, but constantly avoided, i'll ask again:

Who is responsible for the town council website and is any monies paid to anyone to administer it?

Could you please post a link to a copy of the proposal (you can choose from a thousand sites free to upload it to if you must ) and not in a closed facebook group. Why it is not on the town councils website already and well before the vote is anyone's guess.


Thank you.
Do you actually live on Portland?
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: As you have been asked probably more than ten times by people already, but constantly avoided, i'll ask again: Who is responsible for the town council website and is any monies paid to anyone to administer it? Could you please post a link to a copy of the proposal (you can choose from a thousand sites free to upload it to if you must ) and not in a closed facebook group. Why it is not on the town councils website already and well before the vote is anyone's guess. Thank you.[/p][/quote]Do you actually live on Portland? woodsedge

2:49pm Mon 20 Jan 14

drsymes says...

I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise.

How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?
I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong? drsymes

2:50pm Mon 20 Jan 14

doyle52 says...

t.munro wrote:
doyle52 wrote:
Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.
Doyle52
You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be.
Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception.
If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good.
You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community.
Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking.
If only you knew Mr Munro!! I have done and then again some but fell on deaf ears including saving you lot money! Enough said on that oh perhaps dog poo bins around the island but that has been mentioned hundreds of times but not 1 i seen about the place. I pick up all my dog mess thanks and carry the **** stuff home in my pockets! Yes it is my choice to have a dog but to have a place to put it all in would be good. You show the same arrogance in your answer that i was expecting you to say. You go on about passion,pride etc which i have in abundance but what i dont have is a hoard of cash to wing out for the huge rise in precept! I like what you say about your stance on how you feel so at least you are showing something but take all aside this place is ran and controlled by sidesteppers,fraudst
ers and charlatans and when the s does hit the fan you get the whingers and the moaners who before just shut their doors and forgot about the world. I for one am not one of those i am just standing up for what i think is correct and have my own opinions which has i said before are my rights to give love it or hate it i really dont care.
1000/1200% is just far too high truth! Not made up now thats the real reson for this forum is it not.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doyle52[/bold] wrote: Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.[/p][/quote]Doyle52 You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be. Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception. If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good. You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community. Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking.[/p][/quote]If only you knew Mr Munro!! I have done and then again some but fell on deaf ears including saving you lot money! Enough said on that oh perhaps dog poo bins around the island but that has been mentioned hundreds of times but not 1 i seen about the place. I pick up all my dog mess thanks and carry the **** stuff home in my pockets! Yes it is my choice to have a dog but to have a place to put it all in would be good. You show the same arrogance in your answer that i was expecting you to say. You go on about passion,pride etc which i have in abundance but what i dont have is a hoard of cash to wing out for the huge rise in precept! I like what you say about your stance on how you feel so at least you are showing something but take all aside this place is ran and controlled by sidesteppers,fraudst ers and charlatans and when the s does hit the fan you get the whingers and the moaners who before just shut their doors and forgot about the world. I for one am not one of those i am just standing up for what i think is correct and have my own opinions which has i said before are my rights to give love it or hate it i really dont care. 1000/1200% is just far too high truth! Not made up now thats the real reson for this forum is it not. doyle52

2:56pm Mon 20 Jan 14

shy talk says...

Dorset County Councillors Clr Kate Wheller (Portland Harbour) and Clr Paul Kimber (Portland Tophill). Will they be attending the meeting next week?
Dorset County Councillors Clr Kate Wheller (Portland Harbour) and Clr Paul Kimber (Portland Tophill). Will they be attending the meeting next week? shy talk

3:05pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

shy talk wrote:
Dorset County Councillors Clr Kate Wheller (Portland Harbour) and Clr Paul Kimber (Portland Tophill). Will they be attending the meeting next week?
They are not members of the Town council, I am sure they will be welcomed as all members of the public will. The two labour members voted for the precept rise so I guess as they are of the same party they will agree with their colleagues
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Dorset County Councillors Clr Kate Wheller (Portland Harbour) and Clr Paul Kimber (Portland Tophill). Will they be attending the meeting next week?[/p][/quote]They are not members of the Town council, I am sure they will be welcomed as all members of the public will. The two labour members voted for the precept rise so I guess as they are of the same party they will agree with their colleagues t.munro

3:08pm Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

elloello1980 wrote:
t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?
Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air
"slagging me off"

You're not on Jeremy Kyle, you're speaking to those that you're asking money from!
Slight correction there,

It is not being asked, it is being forced on all without proper consultation via an undemocratic panel and with the penalty of having your possession taken away or even prison if you don't accept it.
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?[/p][/quote]Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air[/p][/quote]"slagging me off" You're not on Jeremy Kyle, you're speaking to those that you're asking money from![/p][/quote]Slight correction there, It is not being asked, it is being forced on all without proper consultation via an undemocratic panel and with the penalty of having your possession taken away or even prison if you don't accept it. David_divenghy2

3:10pm Mon 20 Jan 14

captainsea says...

t.munro wrote:
doyle52 wrote:
Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.
Doyle52
You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be.
Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception.
If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good.
You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community.
Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking.
"Yesterday on the beach was fantastic exception" yes Mr Munro, you know why
- because it was not organised by PTC but caring members of the Portland community
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doyle52[/bold] wrote: Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.[/p][/quote]Doyle52 You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be. Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception. If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good. You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community. Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking.[/p][/quote]"Yesterday on the beach was fantastic exception" yes Mr Munro, you know why - because it was not organised by PTC but caring members of the Portland community captainsea

3:12pm Mon 20 Jan 14

doyle52 says...

Mr Munro questions our passion and pride but does that equal an ask of a huge precept rise ? Id love to shop at waitrose every day and buy a top of the range bmw or holiday in the seychelles perhaps and my passion is there for those ideas but in reality my wallets more of aldi,old banger and no bloody holiday so as an average family does their best they work with what they have got. Yes a completely different context but the sentiments are perhaps the same. So far on Portland we have not worked the best with what we have but to indicate this high rise as our only option for those who cannot afford it and struggle with what they have coming in now is hard for us to conceive.
So pride and passion does not in my eyes come into the equation...
Mr Munro questions our passion and pride but does that equal an ask of a huge precept rise ? Id love to shop at waitrose every day and buy a top of the range bmw or holiday in the seychelles perhaps and my passion is there for those ideas but in reality my wallets more of aldi,old banger and no bloody holiday so as an average family does their best they work with what they have got. Yes a completely different context but the sentiments are perhaps the same. So far on Portland we have not worked the best with what we have but to indicate this high rise as our only option for those who cannot afford it and struggle with what they have coming in now is hard for us to conceive. So pride and passion does not in my eyes come into the equation... doyle52

3:13pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

drsymes wrote:
I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise.

How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?
Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions.
David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help.
Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit
[quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?[/p][/quote]Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions. David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help. Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit t.munro

3:19pm Mon 20 Jan 14

captainsea says...

t.munro wrote:
doyle52 wrote:
Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.
Doyle52
You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be.
Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception.
If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good.
You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community.
Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking.
Mr Munro states " Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception" we all know why it's because PTC hadn't organised it and it was the caring people of the Portland community so stop trying to use it to your advantage.

Another thing he seems to slate is the Conservatives yet he crossed the floor from them to Independent.

Seems to me he is starting to throw his toys out of his pram!!
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doyle52[/bold] wrote: Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.[/p][/quote]Doyle52 You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be. Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception. If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good. You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community. Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking.[/p][/quote]Mr Munro states " Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception" we all know why it's because PTC hadn't organised it and it was the caring people of the Portland community so stop trying to use it to your advantage. Another thing he seems to slate is the Conservatives yet he crossed the floor from them to Independent. Seems to me he is starting to throw his toys out of his pram!! captainsea

3:20pm Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

t.munro wrote:
drsymes wrote:
I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise.

How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?
Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions.
David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help.
Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit
No Mr Munro that only leaves 4 Councillors.

Three members of your own family voting on your own proposal is undemocratic and unacceptable. It must be overturned.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?[/p][/quote]Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions. David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help. Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit[/p][/quote]No Mr Munro that only leaves 4 Councillors. Three members of your own family voting on your own proposal is undemocratic and unacceptable. It must be overturned. David_divenghy2

3:20pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Rocksalt wrote:
t.munro wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
shy talk wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.
Agree, but he probably speaks for four.
Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.
I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?
For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless!
Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?
Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1
Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost.
The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland.
It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off.
When the only question is are you happy with what your getting?
If not what are you doing.
I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air
Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth
No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above.
For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse.
The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two.
There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised
No duplication and communities will decide.
I understand the idea that PTC could step in replace a valued service if it were cut by either DCC or WPBC.

My concern is that the temptation for them to cut funding to Portland will increase. If for example, they have to make a choice between cutting a lollipop person on Portland or one in a ward without a town or parish council with cash of its own, aren't they going to chose Portland ?
No, lollipop patrols are based on a criteria, pedestrians, traffic other crossing points. As money gets less the criteria tightens. Eventually is is your turn to be cut. It has happened with the gardens, toilets all sorts. Come a point when there is no more to cut. What then?
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Some replies put forward by Mr Munro I disagree with. However least he has made the effort to put his reasons on this web site. The silence of his fellow councillors is deafening.[/p][/quote]Agree, but he probably speaks for four.[/p][/quote]Nevertheless, he is at least fronting up on this one. I don't know whether the other councillors all have ready access to the internet, so I don't know whether it is fair to criticise them for remaining silent here or elsewhere. What I think we do need is at - or preferably before - the public meeting is clarity as to who thinks what. Not so we can indulge in name calling, but so we are straight as to where people stand.[/p][/quote]I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have a list of who voted what and exactly what the money is for, right now. This is the 21st century, all Council meetings should be audio recorded as the norm for a start and made public. Then again that would be transparent and democratic, god forbid. I still want to know if anyone gets paid for administering the neglected official council website this information is not present on?[/p][/quote]For once I have to take my hat off to you. Mr Munro, usually an answer is better than no answer. but your answer, is as good as no answer. You ask Portlanders, some of whom are struggling to even heat the house, for 1000% of this joke-tax, and yet you can't answer basic questions like what's the money for, instead choosing to selectively give answers or give an answer to a question that was not even asked. You are making Portland Council look weak and pointless![/p][/quote]Good heavens , steady on. :-) What I am trying to get my head around, if I have got this right, is that one Councillor was off sick and one otherwise absent , leaving 12 Councillors voting. Three of those are direct family members of the person putting forward the proposition the people object too. That leaves 8 out of 14 as supposedly impartial voters, this they call a fair and democratic event? Such a serious issue that will harm so many, it should have warranted a full vote by all Councillors on the board, why was this not the case?. I find it absurd that we can have 4 people of the same family voting on each others proposals. How is that even legal and not a conflict? Out of interest how did they vote?[/p][/quote]Did the Labour Party members vote together? Did the Independents vote together. I have already stated that all 12 voted for. One councillors has stated the voted against that is still 11-1 Each ember only has one vote. Just don't know where you are going with you conspiracy theory, if the other councillors had disagreed, my proposal would have been lost. The real question is, like me or not, are you content with the services your getting from WPBC and DCC, would you land your community like to decide how to spend money to improve your part of Portland. It is a bit negative and boring that , not just you, is fixated with slagging me off. When the only question is are you happy with what your getting? If not what are you doing. I have said what I would like to see happen. What about you, any ideas or just a lot of hot air[/p][/quote]Weymouth will be pleased with this as it gives them more money to spend on themselves. If the precept is funding Portland projects then the money that Portland council tax payers pay to the WPBC can be used for Weymouth projects so in effect we will be subsidising Weymouth[/p][/quote]No that is not the case the Portland precept would be for services and projects over and above. For instance a service is provided twice a year instead or four, because of cuts. If the community decides it really wants four WPBC would refuse. The community would apply to the council, the council would ensure that WPBC would service twice and PTC would fund the other two. There would be no duplication. If DCC remove a lollipop lady Portland could step in, Easton and Victoria Gns if the communities wanted PTC to financially support they could, round the Island bus could be subsidised No duplication and communities will decide.[/p][/quote]I understand the idea that PTC could step in replace a valued service if it were cut by either DCC or WPBC. My concern is that the temptation for them to cut funding to Portland will increase. If for example, they have to make a choice between cutting a lollipop person on Portland or one in a ward without a town or parish council with cash of its own, aren't they going to chose Portland ?[/p][/quote]No, lollipop patrols are based on a criteria, pedestrians, traffic other crossing points. As money gets less the criteria tightens. Eventually is is your turn to be cut. It has happened with the gardens, toilets all sorts. Come a point when there is no more to cut. What then? t.munro

3:21pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

drsymes wrote:
I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise.

How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?
Well 4 others seem to remember the word 'principal' not being mentioned, so let's look at it more closely...
Were the five related to each other?
Were the four related to each other?

Based on the fact that nearly 50% of councillors who attended the December meeting completely disagree with what was either proposed or actually the subject of the vote, surely this should make the whole decision process null and void. Why not simply re-address the proposal at another meeting. That way EVERYONE will be fully attentive and aware of what is being voted on and will be able to vote accordingly.
[quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?[/p][/quote]Well 4 others seem to remember the word 'principal' not being mentioned, so let's look at it more closely... Were the five related to each other? Were the four related to each other? Based on the fact that nearly 50% of councillors who attended the December meeting completely disagree with what was either proposed or actually the subject of the vote, surely this should make the whole decision process null and void. Why not simply re-address the proposal at another meeting. That way EVERYONE will be fully attentive and aware of what is being voted on and will be able to vote accordingly. portlandboy

3:25pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Foursite says...

Get a grip wrote:
Let them eat Portland dough cake

Joke
Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History
[quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke[/p][/quote]Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History Foursite

4:11pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portland maid says...

Whilst I am sure you believe you are doing the right thing Mr Monroe, The Islanders are not convinced.
1)Saying The Echo failed to publish is just not good enough and unfair to The Echo, the newspapers are not a notice board? Why was this not put where residents could access, read and give their input?
2) Residents feel that not a lot is given to the Island for our two lots of council tax - why is Weymouth not having their council tax upped too to cover this 'needed' amount?
3) I think you have guessed that 'we' are not happy.
4) You did the interview on Radio Solent,and one of the Councillors mentioned in the piece above, plus you have replied in the comments; so yes, you are the one that is putting it out there that all is good and therefore you are the one getting the flack because the The People of the Isle & Royal Manor of Portland disagree!!
5) Can you tell me why a Councillor can present themselves as an Independent but then be a Tory representative over in Weymouth?? The same can be said for more than one of the PTC.
6) On visiting the PTC website yesterday, there are no minutes after 2013 - why is this not being updated, who is responsible for doing the job, I really hope they havent been paid as this would be fraudulent,
7) The Precept when first introduced was supposed to sustain the PTC as a Body, When did the Precept become a way of funding other things such as The Portland Caretaker and/or other Borough funded projects??
it seems that the increase is being justified to cover costs over & above the retention of PTC itself, which since no one receives a wage should be minimal,
The Precept is purely in place to keep the PTC in operation, not for any other measures, Highways Cleaning, Waste Collection ect-ect all come out of our council tax in the first place. The PTC have no requirement or obligation to support local causes, Projects & Charities out of the Precept.

Feel free to answer each point properly, all we want is an upfront honest person wielding the truth?
Whilst I am sure you believe you are doing the right thing Mr Monroe, The Islanders are not convinced. 1)Saying The Echo failed to publish is just not good enough and unfair to The Echo, the newspapers are not a notice board? Why was this not put where residents could access, read and give their input? 2) Residents feel that not a lot is given to the Island for our two lots of council tax - why is Weymouth not having their council tax upped too to cover this 'needed' amount? 3) I think you have guessed that 'we' are not happy. 4) You did the interview on Radio Solent,and one of the Councillors mentioned in the piece above, plus you have replied in the comments; so yes, you are the one that is putting it out there that all is good and therefore you are the one getting the flack because the The People of the Isle & Royal Manor of Portland disagree!! 5) Can you tell me why a Councillor can present themselves as an Independent but then be a Tory representative over in Weymouth?? The same can be said for more than one of the PTC. 6) On visiting the PTC website yesterday, there are no minutes after 2013 - why is this not being updated, who is responsible for doing the job, I really hope they havent been paid as this would be fraudulent, 7) The Precept when first introduced was supposed to sustain the PTC as a Body, When did the Precept become a way of funding other things such as The Portland Caretaker and/or other Borough funded projects?? it seems that the increase is being justified to cover costs over & above the retention of PTC itself, which since no one receives a wage should be minimal, The Precept is purely in place to keep the PTC in operation, not for any other measures, Highways Cleaning, Waste Collection ect-ect all come out of our council tax in the first place. The PTC have no requirement or obligation to support local causes, Projects & Charities out of the Precept. Feel free to answer each point properly, all we want is an upfront honest person wielding the truth? portland maid

4:14pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Saund65 says...

t.munro wrote:
drsymes wrote:
I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise.

How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?
Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions.
David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help.
Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit
Mr Munro! As you know, the gentleman you are referring to above, we all know who he is, has worked tirelessly for the youth, people and organisations of this Island. You said and I quote "you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give"? You are a town councillor - THAT IS YOUR ROLE - IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY!! Every single one of us has the right to apply for funding for projects - remember you are there to serve and represent the people of this Island and to decide what you all think is best. You should be representing the constituents not your own views.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?[/p][/quote]Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions. David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help. Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit[/p][/quote]Mr Munro! As you know, the gentleman you are referring to above, we all know who he is, has worked tirelessly for the youth, people and organisations of this Island. You said and I quote "you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give"? You are a town councillor - THAT IS YOUR ROLE - IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY!! Every single one of us has the right to apply for funding for projects - remember you are there to serve and represent the people of this Island and to decide what you all think is best. You should be representing the constituents not your own views. Saund65

4:16pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Foursite wrote:
Get a grip wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke
Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History
Munro is my name
How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day?
Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one.
How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest?
That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear .
I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke[/p][/quote]Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History[/p][/quote]Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less. t.munro

4:20pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

doyle52 wrote:
t.munro wrote:
doyle52 wrote:
Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.
Doyle52
You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be.
Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception.
If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good.
You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community.
Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking.
If only you knew Mr Munro!! I have done and then again some but fell on deaf ears including saving you lot money! Enough said on that oh perhaps dog poo bins around the island but that has been mentioned hundreds of times but not 1 i seen about the place. I pick up all my dog mess thanks and carry the **** stuff home in my pockets! Yes it is my choice to have a dog but to have a place to put it all in would be good. You show the same arrogance in your answer that i was expecting you to say. You go on about passion,pride etc which i have in abundance but what i dont have is a hoard of cash to wing out for the huge rise in precept! I like what you say about your stance on how you feel so at least you are showing something but take all aside this place is ran and controlled by sidesteppers,fraudst

ers and charlatans and when the s does hit the fan you get the whingers and the moaners who before just shut their doors and forgot about the world. I for one am not one of those i am just standing up for what i think is correct and have my own opinions which has i said before are my rights to give love it or hate it i really dont care.
1000/1200% is just far too high truth! Not made up now thats the real reson for this forum is it not.
Good grief. I find I agree with Mr Munro on something. I don't really understand why anyone expects other people to pay for dog mess bins, or pay for people to empty the bins. Oh dear, now I have probably unleashed a whole new wave of outrage.
[quote][p][bold]doyle52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doyle52[/bold] wrote: Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.[/p][/quote]Doyle52 You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be. Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception. If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good. You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community. Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking.[/p][/quote]If only you knew Mr Munro!! I have done and then again some but fell on deaf ears including saving you lot money! Enough said on that oh perhaps dog poo bins around the island but that has been mentioned hundreds of times but not 1 i seen about the place. I pick up all my dog mess thanks and carry the **** stuff home in my pockets! Yes it is my choice to have a dog but to have a place to put it all in would be good. You show the same arrogance in your answer that i was expecting you to say. You go on about passion,pride etc which i have in abundance but what i dont have is a hoard of cash to wing out for the huge rise in precept! I like what you say about your stance on how you feel so at least you are showing something but take all aside this place is ran and controlled by sidesteppers,fraudst ers and charlatans and when the s does hit the fan you get the whingers and the moaners who before just shut their doors and forgot about the world. I for one am not one of those i am just standing up for what i think is correct and have my own opinions which has i said before are my rights to give love it or hate it i really dont care. 1000/1200% is just far too high truth! Not made up now thats the real reson for this forum is it not.[/p][/quote]Good grief. I find I agree with Mr Munro on something. I don't really understand why anyone expects other people to pay for dog mess bins, or pay for people to empty the bins. Oh dear, now I have probably unleashed a whole new wave of outrage. Rocksalt

4:28pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

t.munro wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Get a grip wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke
Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History
Munro is my name
How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day?
Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one.
How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest?
That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear .
I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.
So now you say it WAS a proposal and that others agreed on a 'proposal' too. From that you decree that agreement to a proposal was a vote in favour of the introduction of the proposal without any further consultation? Aren't proposals usually discussed and considered before being accepted as an agreed course of action?
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke[/p][/quote]Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History[/p][/quote]Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.[/p][/quote]So now you say it WAS a proposal and that others agreed on a 'proposal' too. From that you decree that agreement to a proposal was a vote in favour of the introduction of the proposal without any further consultation? Aren't proposals usually discussed and considered before being accepted as an agreed course of action? portlandboy

4:30pm Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

t.munro wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Get a grip wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke
Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History
Munro is my name
How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day?
Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one.
How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest?
That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear .
I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.
You arrogant little man

The new precept will amount to £13 a month over and above the normal council tax , this will have a significant effect on many low paid families. You have been asked over a dozen times on this thread to post a link to the proposal and you have dodged doing that, the proposal is not on the official website now or prior to the vote, the minutes have not been updated for over 6 months.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke[/p][/quote]Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History[/p][/quote]Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.[/p][/quote]You arrogant little man The new precept will amount to £13 a month over and above the normal council tax , this will have a significant effect on many low paid families. You have been asked over a dozen times on this thread to post a link to the proposal and you have dodged doing that, the proposal is not on the official website now or prior to the vote, the minutes have not been updated for over 6 months. David_divenghy2

4:33pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
t.munro wrote:
drsymes wrote: I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?
Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions. David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help. Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit
No Mr Munro that only leaves 4 Councillors. Three members of your own family voting on your own proposal is undemocratic and unacceptable. It must be overturned.
How did they those 4 get it so wrong?

David it is a fantasy that fulfils your desire to discredit me.
The fantasy is, that I have any influence over my sisters opinions.
She is a mature intelligent person with her own mature and developed thoughts. It is she that you insult every time you suggest I have some guru like fluence over my sisters thoughts and actions.
You are much better when you argue about the proposal, then when you are trying to develop a conspiracy theory. Maybe you do like the idea, but your dislike for me is preventing from saying so!!
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?[/p][/quote]Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions. David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help. Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit[/p][/quote]No Mr Munro that only leaves 4 Councillors. Three members of your own family voting on your own proposal is undemocratic and unacceptable. It must be overturned.[/p][/quote]How did they those 4 get it so wrong? David it is a fantasy that fulfils your desire to discredit me. The fantasy is, that I have any influence over my sisters opinions. She is a mature intelligent person with her own mature and developed thoughts. It is she that you insult every time you suggest I have some guru like fluence over my sisters thoughts and actions. You are much better when you argue about the proposal, then when you are trying to develop a conspiracy theory. Maybe you do like the idea, but your dislike for me is preventing from saying so!! t.munro

4:35pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

portlandboy wrote:
t.munro wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Get a grip wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke
Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History
Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.
So now you say it WAS a proposal and that others agreed on a 'proposal' too. From that you decree that agreement to a proposal was a vote in favour of the introduction of the proposal without any further consultation? Aren't proposals usually discussed and considered before being accepted as an agreed course of action?
Yes, members debated the proposal, and voted .
as you say the accepted course of action.
[quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke[/p][/quote]Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History[/p][/quote]Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.[/p][/quote]So now you say it WAS a proposal and that others agreed on a 'proposal' too. From that you decree that agreement to a proposal was a vote in favour of the introduction of the proposal without any further consultation? Aren't proposals usually discussed and considered before being accepted as an agreed course of action?[/p][/quote]Yes, members debated the proposal, and voted . as you say the accepted course of action. t.munro

4:37pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

...and Mr Munro, if you want to use a suitable analogy for what 20p a day means, why not just tell them that they will need a bag with 750 of them in to pay the increased precept?
Failing that, allow people to work it out for themselves. We all understand what 20p is. I would have thought that you were beginning to realise that Portlanders aren't as slow as you thought they were where money is concerned.
...and Mr Munro, if you want to use a suitable analogy for what 20p a day means, why not just tell them that they will need a bag with 750 of them in to pay the increased precept? Failing that, allow people to work it out for themselves. We all understand what 20p is. I would have thought that you were beginning to realise that Portlanders aren't as slow as you thought they were where money is concerned. portlandboy

4:40pm Mon 20 Jan 14

doyle52 says...

Rocksalt wrote:
doyle52 wrote:
t.munro wrote:
doyle52 wrote:
Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.
Doyle52
You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be.
Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception.
If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good.
You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community.
Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking.
If only you knew Mr Munro!! I have done and then again some but fell on deaf ears including saving you lot money! Enough said on that oh perhaps dog poo bins around the island but that has been mentioned hundreds of times but not 1 i seen about the place. I pick up all my dog mess thanks and carry the **** stuff home in my pockets! Yes it is my choice to have a dog but to have a place to put it all in would be good. You show the same arrogance in your answer that i was expecting you to say. You go on about passion,pride etc which i have in abundance but what i dont have is a hoard of cash to wing out for the huge rise in precept! I like what you say about your stance on how you feel so at least you are showing something but take all aside this place is ran and controlled by sidesteppers,fraudst


ers and charlatans and when the s does hit the fan you get the whingers and the moaners who before just shut their doors and forgot about the world. I for one am not one of those i am just standing up for what i think is correct and have my own opinions which has i said before are my rights to give love it or hate it i really dont care.
1000/1200% is just far too high truth! Not made up now thats the real reson for this forum is it not.
Good grief. I find I agree with Mr Munro on something. I don't really understand why anyone expects other people to pay for dog mess bins, or pay for people to empty the bins. Oh dear, now I have probably unleashed a whole new wave of outrage.
Yes sorry you may have done but thats a row for another day! Just to say in other counties they have bins for this kind of thing and perhaps it would save the dog **** bushes!! But no not asking for any more money good god no otherwise perhaps a 2000% rise in precept!! i will just have to stop putting my fingers through the bag whilst its in my pocket and wait till i walk and arrive at home then put it in the everyday bin .
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doyle52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doyle52[/bold] wrote: Common them happening on every single forum out there all of the island disagree with this rise and the ones that do agree slightly do agree to a manageable rise that many householders could manage or not be frightened off by. However no consultation before the fact and we all know why and that is if that was done before we would not be here now wasting our fingers!! So lets say just Mr Munro was the only one in his family on the council then i would still look at it the same way and say the whole council stinks every single member of it. But add the other three family members who i have listened to on occasion and seen about the place and its my personal opinion that they really dont give a toss about the community of Portland but revel in power and seem to think they are superior in intelligience! Before you start Tim no i am not slagging you off this is a fact i personally feel and it is my devine right to have my own opinion. But i am not the only one who thinks this as i have read the comments. But all personal opinions to the side PTC is totally inept in every way and having to pay someone to update your website is laughable and if you want to provide clarity and not be open to public questions then why did not one of the 12 update the site?? Just decided to ignore it and make another point of the council look bloody daft ! Yes DCC are rubbish and i feel everyone pays to much council tax for what they get anyway but i think its best we pay one or the other and not both and the only way we do that is by all agreeing something and not this ridiculous precept rise. There has been no councillor willing to at least mention oh sorry people of Portland we totally understand how you feel and how poor you might be or something along those lines. Oh no just a roundabout argument about who is right and who is wrong,who said what and who didnt bla bla bla . FACT Portland town council needs to start listening to the people that live on the island rather than us listening to useless facts and figures and what we could have and what we dont have. And have a sense of decency and respect and let us vote for this before deciding on it as its the public community that counts and not just 12 random people who could not organise a **** up in a brewery.[/p][/quote]Doyle52 You have no idea what my feelings are, you are just laying your own ideas of what you would like my feelings to be. Well I'll tell you, in my life time , in my mothers lifetime this place has deteriorated. I hear people whine and moan and do little. Yesterday on the beach was a fantastic exception. If people don't pick up their dog muck, eave black bags in the street for days it sort of indicates a act of pride in Portland. There was a pride an independence a desire to be better, to be good. You may not have the same passion as I, if you do ( whoever you are) join with us a get stuff done. Come to meetings bring your ideas, that is ideas, saying no is not an idea. Whatever happens over the precept ( I reckon your government will step in, because this doesn't suit conservative policy) we should have a more vibrant a switched on vocal community. Time for you to give some help in getting the island pride back, instead of knocking.[/p][/quote]If only you knew Mr Munro!! I have done and then again some but fell on deaf ears including saving you lot money! Enough said on that oh perhaps dog poo bins around the island but that has been mentioned hundreds of times but not 1 i seen about the place. I pick up all my dog mess thanks and carry the **** stuff home in my pockets! Yes it is my choice to have a dog but to have a place to put it all in would be good. You show the same arrogance in your answer that i was expecting you to say. You go on about passion,pride etc which i have in abundance but what i dont have is a hoard of cash to wing out for the huge rise in precept! I like what you say about your stance on how you feel so at least you are showing something but take all aside this place is ran and controlled by sidesteppers,fraudst ers and charlatans and when the s does hit the fan you get the whingers and the moaners who before just shut their doors and forgot about the world. I for one am not one of those i am just standing up for what i think is correct and have my own opinions which has i said before are my rights to give love it or hate it i really dont care. 1000/1200% is just far too high truth! Not made up now thats the real reson for this forum is it not.[/p][/quote]Good grief. I find I agree with Mr Munro on something. I don't really understand why anyone expects other people to pay for dog mess bins, or pay for people to empty the bins. Oh dear, now I have probably unleashed a whole new wave of outrage.[/p][/quote]Yes sorry you may have done but thats a row for another day! Just to say in other counties they have bins for this kind of thing and perhaps it would save the dog **** bushes!! But no not asking for any more money good god no otherwise perhaps a 2000% rise in precept!! i will just have to stop putting my fingers through the bag whilst its in my pocket and wait till i walk and arrive at home then put it in the everyday bin . doyle52

4:40pm Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
t.munro wrote:
drsymes wrote: I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?
Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions. David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help. Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit
No Mr Munro that only leaves 4 Councillors. Three members of your own family voting on your own proposal is undemocratic and unacceptable. It must be overturned.
How did they those 4 get it so wrong?

David it is a fantasy that fulfils your desire to discredit me.
The fantasy is, that I have any influence over my sisters opinions.
She is a mature intelligent person with her own mature and developed thoughts. It is she that you insult every time you suggest I have some guru like fluence over my sisters thoughts and actions.
You are much better when you argue about the proposal, then when you are trying to develop a conspiracy theory. Maybe you do like the idea, but your dislike for me is preventing from saying so!!
Oh c'mon Tim, do you think anyone is buying that? Four members of the same family on thew same panel, voting for each others proposals is ridiculous by any standard and completely undemocratic and wide open to corruption and influence, whether that has happened or not needs to be looked into, I am not saying it has, I am saying it is totally undemocratic.

I don't have to discredit you, your arrogance toward the hardships of the constituents and attitude is doing that quite fine so stop throwing your toys about , now try answering thew question for the 12+ times you have been asked.

Please post a link to the proposal ( that you could have uploaded hours ago when first asked) and please tell me who is responsible for the town council website and does anyone receive any monies for administrating it.

We can do the Paxman thing all day if you want. It's you who is looking more and more dodgy not simply answering a straight and reasonable question.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?[/p][/quote]Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions. David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help. Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit[/p][/quote]No Mr Munro that only leaves 4 Councillors. Three members of your own family voting on your own proposal is undemocratic and unacceptable. It must be overturned.[/p][/quote]How did they those 4 get it so wrong? David it is a fantasy that fulfils your desire to discredit me. The fantasy is, that I have any influence over my sisters opinions. She is a mature intelligent person with her own mature and developed thoughts. It is she that you insult every time you suggest I have some guru like fluence over my sisters thoughts and actions. You are much better when you argue about the proposal, then when you are trying to develop a conspiracy theory. Maybe you do like the idea, but your dislike for me is preventing from saying so!![/p][/quote]Oh c'mon Tim, do you think anyone is buying that? Four members of the same family on thew same panel, voting for each others proposals is ridiculous by any standard and completely undemocratic and wide open to corruption and influence, whether that has happened or not needs to be looked into, I am not saying it has, I am saying it is totally undemocratic. I don't have to discredit you, your arrogance toward the hardships of the constituents and attitude is doing that quite fine so stop throwing your toys about , now try answering thew question for the 12+ times you have been asked. Please post a link to the proposal ( that you could have uploaded hours ago when first asked) and please tell me who is responsible for the town council website and does anyone receive any monies for administrating it. We can do the Paxman thing all day if you want. It's you who is looking more and more dodgy not simply answering a straight and reasonable question. David_divenghy2

4:41pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portlandboy says...

t.munro wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
t.munro wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Get a grip wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke
Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History
Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.
So now you say it WAS a proposal and that others agreed on a 'proposal' too. From that you decree that agreement to a proposal was a vote in favour of the introduction of the proposal without any further consultation? Aren't proposals usually discussed and considered before being accepted as an agreed course of action?
Yes, members debated the proposal, and voted .
as you say the accepted course of action.
So how did half of them NOT realise what they were voting on?
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke[/p][/quote]Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History[/p][/quote]Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.[/p][/quote]So now you say it WAS a proposal and that others agreed on a 'proposal' too. From that you decree that agreement to a proposal was a vote in favour of the introduction of the proposal without any further consultation? Aren't proposals usually discussed and considered before being accepted as an agreed course of action?[/p][/quote]Yes, members debated the proposal, and voted . as you say the accepted course of action.[/p][/quote]So how did half of them NOT realise what they were voting on? portlandboy

4:45pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
t.munro wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Get a grip wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke
Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History
Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.
You arrogant little man The new precept will amount to £13 a month over and above the normal council tax , this will have a significant effect on many low paid families. You have been asked over a dozen times on this thread to post a link to the proposal and you have dodged doing that, the proposal is not on the official website now or prior to the vote, the minutes have not been updated for over 6 months.
You call me names and demand I respond to your request.
That is pot calling kettle.
You call me an "arrogant little man", your correct i am little, thank goodness we only have one thing in common.
I will send it to you contact me with an email address. Not able to upload until later tonight . Thank you for you patience.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke[/p][/quote]Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History[/p][/quote]Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.[/p][/quote]You arrogant little man The new precept will amount to £13 a month over and above the normal council tax , this will have a significant effect on many low paid families. You have been asked over a dozen times on this thread to post a link to the proposal and you have dodged doing that, the proposal is not on the official website now or prior to the vote, the minutes have not been updated for over 6 months.[/p][/quote]You call me names and demand I respond to your request. That is pot calling kettle. You call me an "arrogant little man", your correct i am little, thank goodness we only have one thing in common. I will send it to you contact me with an email address. Not able to upload until later tonight . Thank you for you patience. t.munro

4:47pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

portlandboy wrote:
t.munro wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
t.munro wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Get a grip wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke
Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History
Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.
So now you say it WAS a proposal and that others agreed on a 'proposal' too. From that you decree that agreement to a proposal was a vote in favour of the introduction of the proposal without any further consultation? Aren't proposals usually discussed and considered before being accepted as an agreed course of action?
Yes, members debated the proposal, and voted . as you say the accepted course of action.
So how did half of them NOT realise what they were voting on?
Good question, but for them not me.
[quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke[/p][/quote]Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History[/p][/quote]Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.[/p][/quote]So now you say it WAS a proposal and that others agreed on a 'proposal' too. From that you decree that agreement to a proposal was a vote in favour of the introduction of the proposal without any further consultation? Aren't proposals usually discussed and considered before being accepted as an agreed course of action?[/p][/quote]Yes, members debated the proposal, and voted . as you say the accepted course of action.[/p][/quote]So how did half of them NOT realise what they were voting on?[/p][/quote]Good question, but for them not me. t.munro

4:51pm Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

t.munro wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
t.munro wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Get a grip wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke
Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History
Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.
You arrogant little man The new precept will amount to £13 a month over and above the normal council tax , this will have a significant effect on many low paid families. You have been asked over a dozen times on this thread to post a link to the proposal and you have dodged doing that, the proposal is not on the official website now or prior to the vote, the minutes have not been updated for over 6 months.
You call me names and demand I respond to your request.
That is pot calling kettle.
You call me an "arrogant little man", your correct i am little, thank goodness we only have one thing in common.
I will send it to you contact me with an email address. Not able to upload until later tonight . Thank you for you patience.
If you stopped acting like an man with something to hide and just answered the questions instead of dodging them and coming up with nonsense to try and obfuscate things, you might get some respect and people might not draw reasonable conclusions. You are being an arrogant man, that is not calling you a name, that is a fact. Your attitude towards the low wage family's shows that easily.

Now lets try once again shall we.

As a Councillor can you please post a link to the proposal as you have been asked by quite a few people and tell me who administers the website and are any monies paid for it.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke[/p][/quote]Although Mr Munroe I accept your apology for accusing me of lie-ing, Please don't consider me an ally.What your proposal has done to Portland is to highlight the way things have been happening on your watch over a number of years.You have now realised you would have perhaps liked to have gone about things in a different way.Like consulting your constituents Your complete arrogance of using an analogy of a pint of beer .a week to accept this rise is out of tune with the electorate.Why not use things like baby milk or nappies.The plan to feather your own nest for the next election by giving out money you have fleeced off of the electorate now , has been discovered You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise now. If Portland is doomed as you say, it will be down to you and PTC no one else.This is indeed the beginning of a new era in PTC History[/p][/quote]Munro is my name How else would you have descibed an increas of (on average) of 20 pence per day? Clearly you have read my proposal. Have you a better one. How exactly are you suggesting I am feathering my own nest? That sounds like a accusation if it is, make it clear . I have put forward a proposal others councillors agreed, no more no less.[/p][/quote]You arrogant little man The new precept will amount to £13 a month over and above the normal council tax , this will have a significant effect on many low paid families. You have been asked over a dozen times on this thread to post a link to the proposal and you have dodged doing that, the proposal is not on the official website now or prior to the vote, the minutes have not been updated for over 6 months.[/p][/quote]You call me names and demand I respond to your request. That is pot calling kettle. You call me an "arrogant little man", your correct i am little, thank goodness we only have one thing in common. I will send it to you contact me with an email address. Not able to upload until later tonight . Thank you for you patience.[/p][/quote]If you stopped acting like an man with something to hide and just answered the questions instead of dodging them and coming up with nonsense to try and obfuscate things, you might get some respect and people might not draw reasonable conclusions. You are being an arrogant man, that is not calling you a name, that is a fact. Your attitude towards the low wage family's shows that easily. Now lets try once again shall we. As a Councillor can you please post a link to the proposal as you have been asked by quite a few people and tell me who administers the website and are any monies paid for it. David_divenghy2

4:53pm Mon 20 Jan 14

doyle52 says...

Conspiracy theories aside chaps but truly Mr Munro your quite a contradictory fella aint ya ! saying things that either are right you say are wrong then backtracking later down the line. Saying when things didnt happen or got said then forgetting there were witnesses and then having to backtrack again.
The whole things a shambles you know it,i know it as do the rest of Portland do yourself a favour and answer the questions you keep avoiding and find yourself the right things to say please cause you are beginning to look foolish my man .
Conspiracy theories aside chaps but truly Mr Munro your quite a contradictory fella aint ya ! saying things that either are right you say are wrong then backtracking later down the line. Saying when things didnt happen or got said then forgetting there were witnesses and then having to backtrack again. The whole things a shambles you know it,i know it as do the rest of Portland do yourself a favour and answer the questions you keep avoiding and find yourself the right things to say please cause you are beginning to look foolish my man . doyle52

4:55pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portland rebel says...

so the long and the short of it is, we need to pay £150 a year to the town council so that they can deliver services that we should already be getting that we dont, that we already pay for.............err shouldnt our so called councillors be fighting for these services rather than asking us to subsidize wpbc for the appalling service.
so the long and the short of it is, we need to pay £150 a year to the town council so that they can deliver services that we should already be getting that we dont, that we already pay for.............err shouldnt our so called councillors be fighting for these services rather than asking us to subsidize wpbc for the appalling service. portland rebel

4:59pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

doyle52 wrote:
Conspiracy theories aside chaps but truly Mr Munro your quite a contradictory fella aint ya ! saying things that either are right you say are wrong then backtracking later down the line. Saying when things didnt happen or got said then forgetting there were witnesses and then having to backtrack again. The whole things a shambles you know it,i know it as do the rest of Portland do yourself a favour and answer the questions you keep avoiding and find yourself the right things to say please cause you are beginning to look foolish my man .
My man. I have posted the proposal on the Born and Bred site, I realise that wouldn't reach everybody. I will post somewhere my proposal, I know not where yet, and not able to complete that till later. I can however as I have offered others, to send directly send me your email.
[quote][p][bold]doyle52[/bold] wrote: Conspiracy theories aside chaps but truly Mr Munro your quite a contradictory fella aint ya ! saying things that either are right you say are wrong then backtracking later down the line. Saying when things didnt happen or got said then forgetting there were witnesses and then having to backtrack again. The whole things a shambles you know it,i know it as do the rest of Portland do yourself a favour and answer the questions you keep avoiding and find yourself the right things to say please cause you are beginning to look foolish my man .[/p][/quote]My man. I have posted the proposal on the Born and Bred site, I realise that wouldn't reach everybody. I will post somewhere my proposal, I know not where yet, and not able to complete that till later. I can however as I have offered others, to send directly send me your email. t.munro

5:01pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

portland rebel wrote:
so the long and the short of it is, we need to pay £150 a year to the town council so that they can deliver services that we should already be getting that we dont, that we already pay for.............err shouldnt our so called councillors be fighting for these services rather than asking us to subsidize wpbc for the appalling service.
Portland Rebel,
Services they have cut, not ones that they are or should be providing.
I
[quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: so the long and the short of it is, we need to pay £150 a year to the town council so that they can deliver services that we should already be getting that we dont, that we already pay for.............err shouldnt our so called councillors be fighting for these services rather than asking us to subsidize wpbc for the appalling service.[/p][/quote]Portland Rebel, Services they have cut, not ones that they are or should be providing. I t.munro

5:02pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Foursite says...

When we eventually get the minutes,I hope the argument over those minutes are recorded as they were changed. the wording was that Councillors excepted the proposal.but not the amount set
.MUNRO done his utmost to get the minutes changed .
When we eventually get the minutes,I hope the argument over those minutes are recorded as they were changed. the wording was that Councillors excepted the proposal.but not the amount set .MUNRO done his utmost to get the minutes changed . Foursite

5:07pm Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Mr Munro, you have been on this site since 9:14 this morning dodging questions and making every excuse to avoid them.

You had been asked politiley to answer some questions, while displaying a great deal of presumption about local tax payers and what they can or cannot afford.

You do not need to get home to answer who administers the website and are any monies paid to anyone for it, you do not need to get home to answer why , despite statements by central council about such, the minutes have not been updated for 6 months.

I can accept that maybe you need to get home to retrieve a copy of the proposal, had you simply said that from thew start instead of spending the entire day dodging it, that would have been that.

So when you get home, I trust a link to the copy of your proposal will be forthcoming on here. Then maybe an explanation from the council as to why it was not on the official site prior to the vote along with the why the minutes have not been published fro 6 months.

There's no point in speaking about some CLOSED facebook group that people should not have to join and never heard of, and on top of which you don't even post a link to it.

In two seconds flat a Google search will give you a thousand free open file forwarding/deposit websites you could upload it to in seconds and post the link here. Simple as that. costs nothing.
You could try sendspace.com for example there are many , no registering required. takes seconds.
Mr Munro, you have been on this site since 9:14 this morning dodging questions and making every excuse to avoid them. You had been asked politiley to answer some questions, while displaying a great deal of presumption about local tax payers and what they can or cannot afford. You do not need to get home to answer who administers the website and are any monies paid to anyone for it, you do not need to get home to answer why , despite statements by central council about such, the minutes have not been updated for 6 months. I can accept that maybe you need to get home to retrieve a copy of the proposal, had you simply said that from thew start instead of spending the entire day dodging it, that would have been that. So when you get home, I trust a link to the copy of your proposal will be forthcoming on here. Then maybe an explanation from the council as to why it was not on the official site prior to the vote along with the why the minutes have not been published fro 6 months. There's no point in speaking about some CLOSED facebook group that people should not have to join and never heard of, and on top of which you don't even post a link to it. In two seconds flat a Google search will give you a thousand free open file forwarding/deposit websites you could upload it to in seconds and post the link here. Simple as that. costs nothing. You could try sendspace.com for example there are many , no registering required. takes seconds. David_divenghy2

5:11pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Foursite wrote:
When we eventually get the minutes,I hope the argument over those minutes are recorded as they were changed. the wording was that Councillors excepted the proposal.but not the amount set .MUNRO done his utmost to get the minutes changed .
You witnessed what happened, in the proceedings on the accuracy of minutes, which members have to agree, happens every meeting. Errors are corrected. Those minutes where from Dec,the Jan mins usually take the clerk about two weeks to produce.
Again you shout at me, all concillors voted not just me.
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: When we eventually get the minutes,I hope the argument over those minutes are recorded as they were changed. the wording was that Councillors excepted the proposal.but not the amount set .MUNRO done his utmost to get the minutes changed .[/p][/quote]You witnessed what happened, in the proceedings on the accuracy of minutes, which members have to agree, happens every meeting. Errors are corrected. Those minutes where from Dec,the Jan mins usually take the clerk about two weeks to produce. Again you shout at me, all concillors voted not just me. t.munro

5:12pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Saund65 says...

t.munro wrote:
portland rebel wrote:
so the long and the short of it is, we need to pay £150 a year to the town council so that they can deliver services that we should already be getting that we dont, that we already pay for.............err shouldnt our so called councillors be fighting for these services rather than asking us to subsidize wpbc for the appalling service.
Portland Rebel,
Services they have cut, not ones that they are or should be providing.
I
So, why should you be asking us to pay for those services again? You should, as an elected town councillor, be fighting W&PBC and DCC to make sure those services are reinstated - not asking the very people who you serve to pay again? It is madness and quite frankly - what were you as a Town Council thinking? Regardless whether people can afford it, it is not for you to decide, without a mandate from your constituents, that this is the way forward. A very misguided, arrogant and pompous view taken by one family.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: so the long and the short of it is, we need to pay £150 a year to the town council so that they can deliver services that we should already be getting that we dont, that we already pay for.............err shouldnt our so called councillors be fighting for these services rather than asking us to subsidize wpbc for the appalling service.[/p][/quote]Portland Rebel, Services they have cut, not ones that they are or should be providing. I[/p][/quote]So, why should you be asking us to pay for those services again? You should, as an elected town councillor, be fighting W&PBC and DCC to make sure those services are reinstated - not asking the very people who you serve to pay again? It is madness and quite frankly - what were you as a Town Council thinking? Regardless whether people can afford it, it is not for you to decide, without a mandate from your constituents, that this is the way forward. A very misguided, arrogant and pompous view taken by one family. Saund65

5:18pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portland maid says...

erm, taking the word 'not' out of those minutes totally changed the meaning of the outcome, therefore it went ahead, and with some members absent!!!
Bad form.
and I am still waiting for a reply to my earlier post, but I know you are busy playing word tennis so I will wait a bit more.
erm, taking the word 'not' out of those minutes totally changed the meaning of the outcome, therefore it went ahead, and with some members absent!!! Bad form. and I am still waiting for a reply to my earlier post, but I know you are busy playing word tennis so I will wait a bit more. portland maid

5:23pm Mon 20 Jan 14

John New says...

I've lived on Portland 27 years and always thought PTC a waste of money but it cost so little it wasn't worth rocking the boat. Today I heard Cnr Munro on radio Solent openly admitting PTC has done nothing but talk for years, confirming it isn't needed. It had a sensible and meaningful role before 1974, national legislation took that away when WPBC was formed. Time to scrap it not increase the bill.

DONT NEED IT - DONT WANT TO PAY FOR IT.

(Sorry if this is a duplicated post - first one seemed to disappear unsent!)
I've lived on Portland 27 years and always thought PTC a waste of money but it cost so little it wasn't worth rocking the boat. Today I heard Cnr Munro on radio Solent openly admitting PTC has done nothing but talk for years, confirming it isn't needed. It had a sensible and meaningful role before 1974, national legislation took that away when WPBC was formed. Time to scrap it not increase the bill. DONT NEED IT - DONT WANT TO PAY FOR IT. (Sorry if this is a duplicated post - first one seemed to disappear unsent!) John New

5:24pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Saund65 wrote:
t.munro wrote:
portland rebel wrote: so the long and the short of it is, we need to pay £150 a year to the town council so that they can deliver services that we should already be getting that we dont, that we already pay for.............err shouldnt our so called councillors be fighting for these services rather than asking us to subsidize wpbc for the appalling service.
Portland Rebel, Services they have cut, not ones that they are or should be providing. I
So, why should you be asking us to pay for those services again? You should, as an elected town councillor, be fighting W&PBC and DCC to make sure those services are reinstated - not asking the very people who you serve to pay again? It is madness and quite frankly - what were you as a Town Council thinking? Regardless whether people can afford it, it is not for you to decide, without a mandate from your constituents, that this is the way forward. A very misguided, arrogant and pompous view taken by one family.
I am feed up now, being subject to personal abuse.
It was my proposal voted on by the coucillors there. I will post
my proposal later. It is a trial to be constantly abused.
I have attempted to engage and answer what I can.
I suggest you go and abuse someone else.
Good evening
[quote][p][bold]Saund65[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: so the long and the short of it is, we need to pay £150 a year to the town council so that they can deliver services that we should already be getting that we dont, that we already pay for.............err shouldnt our so called councillors be fighting for these services rather than asking us to subsidize wpbc for the appalling service.[/p][/quote]Portland Rebel, Services they have cut, not ones that they are or should be providing. I[/p][/quote]So, why should you be asking us to pay for those services again? You should, as an elected town councillor, be fighting W&PBC and DCC to make sure those services are reinstated - not asking the very people who you serve to pay again? It is madness and quite frankly - what were you as a Town Council thinking? Regardless whether people can afford it, it is not for you to decide, without a mandate from your constituents, that this is the way forward. A very misguided, arrogant and pompous view taken by one family.[/p][/quote]I am feed up now, being subject to personal abuse. It was my proposal voted on by the coucillors there. I will post my proposal later. It is a trial to be constantly abused. I have attempted to engage and answer what I can. I suggest you go and abuse someone else. Good evening t.munro

5:26pm Mon 20 Jan 14

banknote says...

As an ex-Portland resident, two points seem to come out of the contributions so far

1: Portlanders do not like four members of the same family "serving" on PTC. Having dealt with the family before: I agree. The answer, surely, is for some of the contributors on here to stand for election themselves and stop this cosy arrangement?

2: In the current climate PTC is basically a talking shop with little powers. Perhaps Portlanders should be campaigning for a council with real powers - like the old PUDC?

It is fine to be a critic and most of your points are valid, but at some point you have to stand and be counted.
As an ex-Portland resident, two points seem to come out of the contributions so far 1: Portlanders do not like four members of the same family "serving" on PTC. Having dealt with the family before: I agree. The answer, surely, is for some of the contributors on here to stand for election themselves and stop this cosy arrangement? 2: In the current climate PTC is basically a talking shop with little powers. Perhaps Portlanders should be campaigning for a council with real powers - like the old PUDC? It is fine to be a critic and most of your points are valid, but at some point you have to stand and be counted. banknote

5:36pm Mon 20 Jan 14

debsurfs says...

Copied from Facebook:
Obviously sent out after the December meeting

From: Tim Munro

Precept 2014/15 Discussion paper for Budget working group.(all figures are approx)
Timescale. Early January. An informal all member meeting (clerk to set date)
Mid January. Budget working group to prepare recommendations (clerk to set date)
February. Full council budget setting.

Agreed by Portland Town Council at December meeting.
Precept has been set at £150. Band D equivalent.
Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin.
Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council.

The reasons for my proposal to raise the precept came from the threat that Town and Parish councils may be capped by government (indeed it still could be the case this year)and PTC may have missed the chance to improve well being and services for residents of Portland.
This proposal is set against a background of reduced and cut services by WPBC and DCC.
Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election, May 2015.
1 year from the implementation of the new precept. 2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding. If it is seen to work,councillors will be re elected, if not new councillors will be elected and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil.


There has, since 1974 been constant chatter about Portland,regaining independence, whilst not gaining complete independence,we will go a very long way towards financial independence and a greater influence with WPBC and DCC.
Portland residents will have more and better services than those in Wyke and Weymouth. It is essential that PTC hold WPBC and DCC to account for their services.

Precept set at £150 band D equivalent.
Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin.
Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council.
The amount that the revised precept will raise is not finalised, the precept base for the current year is 3251, that may change this year ( not expected to be a significant change) the council tax grant is yet to be resolved. Based on last year the sum to be received by the council is circa £480.000.

Approx Budget Wages/Admin £48.000.10%max, Caretaker £30.000. Other expenses excluding wages,£15.000 Neighbourhood plan £5.000.
Leaving approx £380,000 plus any other income. £80.000 for general strategic spending for the whole Island, for instance, a subsidised around the island bus linking Osprey leisure centre,doctors surgery, library and transport connections - 2 years free swimming lessons for all 5/6 year olds - subsidised membership to the leisure center for over 60s-Traffic calming and SIDs
Signage-public seating - pedestrian crossings in Fortunes Well - establishing a Portland festival.
Projects that are not a priority in WPBC or DCC area but are a priority to residents of Portland will be considered for funding, this will include some, not necessarily all, services supplied by DCC and WPBC.

In the spirit of localism,the nearer decisions are made to taxpayer the more likely the taxpayer will
understand and appreciate proper use of taxation. The budget to each ward will have an annual ceiling, set by PTC and limited by the amount of precept collected, communities will have to prioritise their own expenditure.
There is a possibility of discontent between wards, in that priorities will be different and some projects will work better than others.

Each ward, East, West and Underhill to have available to spent on projects £100.000
this could be further split into East £80.000 Grove £20.000 Weston 80.000 Southwell £20.000
Underhill £80.000 Castletown £20.000 ( just a suggestion,council may have different view about distribution) the projects should be one off capital projects in order to avoid the council incurring increasing revenue costs. The council should encourage match funding. Projects to be submitted quarterly to PTC for approval, an application form and criteria for projects needs to be developed.
The projects granted will need to be audited and assistance given in applying for grants and match funding applications, PTC should consider creating 2 part time or 1 full time post for a Project funding officer.(within the 10%budget)

There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC, our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community. PTC should be a commissioning council
supporting community aspirations and 'pump prime' projects. PTC should encourage sustainability of projects by applicants. Community spirt cohesiveness will be enhanced by community ownership.
Often said by existing councils, if we started a council tomorrow 'we would do it
differently' PTC is a blank canvass, by luck or judgement it has done nothing in the past. We have a opportunity to change how local government reacts on behalf of its residence.

Communications, a problem PTC has. To move forward PTC must be able to communicate closely with all residents, using traditional methods and inventing new. This will be particularly important in the caretaker management and the community distribution of monies for projects.
A mechanism for residents to vote/choose projects for their community, could use web site,Free Portland News, community meetings, community panels. Initially a significant budget would be required to ensure engagement with all residents.
PTC could consider, vacating the council chamber and inviting WPBC to provide alternative accommodation(Easton
) administrative offices for the clerk and a front desk open 10-4 5 days
It could double as a TIC and maybe share the public desk with the Police or WPBC releasing PTC offices for development by WPBC.

PTC council meetings alternating between wards, taking the council to residents.
Communities would have 4 application dates per year coinciding with the council meeting in their ward.
This would give some certainty to the applicants regarding timescale and give the council a timescale in which to manage the process

This the beginning of a new era in PTC
Copied from Facebook: Obviously sent out after the December meeting From: Tim Munro Precept 2014/15 Discussion paper for Budget working group.(all figures are approx) Timescale. Early January. An informal all member meeting (clerk to set date) Mid January. Budget working group to prepare recommendations (clerk to set date) February. Full council budget setting. Agreed by Portland Town Council at December meeting. Precept has been set at £150. Band D equivalent. Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin. Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council. The reasons for my proposal to raise the precept came from the threat that Town and Parish councils may be capped by government (indeed it still could be the case this year)and PTC may have missed the chance to improve well being and services for residents of Portland. This proposal is set against a background of reduced and cut services by WPBC and DCC. Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election, May 2015. 1 year from the implementation of the new precept. 2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding. If it is seen to work,councillors will be re elected, if not new councillors will be elected and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil. There has, since 1974 been constant chatter about Portland,regaining independence, whilst not gaining complete independence,we will go a very long way towards financial independence and a greater influence with WPBC and DCC. Portland residents will have more and better services than those in Wyke and Weymouth. It is essential that PTC hold WPBC and DCC to account for their services. Precept set at £150 band D equivalent. Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin. Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council. The amount that the revised precept will raise is not finalised, the precept base for the current year is 3251, that may change this year ( not expected to be a significant change) the council tax grant is yet to be resolved. Based on last year the sum to be received by the council is circa £480.000. Approx Budget Wages/Admin £48.000.10%max, Caretaker £30.000. Other expenses excluding wages,£15.000 Neighbourhood plan £5.000. Leaving approx £380,000 plus any other income. £80.000 for general strategic spending for the whole Island, for instance, a subsidised around the island bus linking Osprey leisure centre,doctors surgery, library and transport connections - 2 years free swimming lessons for all 5/6 year olds - subsidised membership to the leisure center for over 60s-Traffic calming and SIDs Signage-public seating - pedestrian crossings in Fortunes Well - establishing a Portland festival. Projects that are not a priority in WPBC or DCC area but are a priority to residents of Portland will be considered for funding, this will include some, not necessarily all, services supplied by DCC and WPBC. In the spirit of localism,the nearer decisions are made to taxpayer the more likely the taxpayer will understand and appreciate proper use of taxation. The budget to each ward will have an annual ceiling, set by PTC and limited by the amount of precept collected, communities will have to prioritise their own expenditure. There is a possibility of discontent between wards, in that priorities will be different and some projects will work better than others. Each ward, East, West and Underhill to have available to spent on projects £100.000 this could be further split into East £80.000 Grove £20.000 Weston 80.000 Southwell £20.000 Underhill £80.000 Castletown £20.000 ( just a suggestion,council may have different view about distribution) the projects should be one off capital projects in order to avoid the council incurring increasing revenue costs. The council should encourage match funding. Projects to be submitted quarterly to PTC for approval, an application form and criteria for projects needs to be developed. The projects granted will need to be audited and assistance given in applying for grants and match funding applications, PTC should consider creating 2 part time or 1 full time post for a Project funding officer.(within the 10%budget) There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC, our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community. PTC should be a commissioning council supporting community aspirations and 'pump prime' projects. PTC should encourage sustainability of projects by applicants. Community spirt cohesiveness will be enhanced by community ownership. Often said by existing councils, if we started a council tomorrow 'we would do it differently' PTC is a blank canvass, by luck or judgement it has done nothing in the past. We have a opportunity to change how local government reacts on behalf of its residence. Communications, a problem PTC has. To move forward PTC must be able to communicate closely with all residents, using traditional methods and inventing new. This will be particularly important in the caretaker management and the community distribution of monies for projects. A mechanism for residents to vote/choose projects for their community, could use web site,Free Portland News, community meetings, community panels. Initially a significant budget would be required to ensure engagement with all residents. PTC could consider, vacating the council chamber and inviting WPBC to provide alternative accommodation(Easton ) administrative offices for the clerk and a front desk open 10-4 5 days It could double as a TIC and maybe share the public desk with the Police or WPBC releasing PTC offices for development by WPBC. PTC council meetings alternating between wards, taking the council to residents. Communities would have 4 application dates per year coinciding with the council meeting in their ward. This would give some certainty to the applicants regarding timescale and give the council a timescale in which to manage the process This the beginning of a new era in PTC debsurfs

6:07pm Mon 20 Jan 14

portland maid says...

cor! didnt you find that easy Deb! Cut and paste, who knew?!
cor! didnt you find that easy Deb! Cut and paste, who knew?! portland maid

6:11pm Mon 20 Jan 14

doyle52 says...

debsurfs wrote:
Copied from Facebook:
Obviously sent out after the December meeting

From: Tim Munro

Precept 2014/15 Discussion paper for Budget working group.(all figures are approx)
Timescale. Early January. An informal all member meeting (clerk to set date)
Mid January. Budget working group to prepare recommendations (clerk to set date)
February. Full council budget setting.

Agreed by Portland Town Council at December meeting.
Precept has been set at £150. Band D equivalent.
Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin.
Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council.

The reasons for my proposal to raise the precept came from the threat that Town and Parish councils may be capped by government (indeed it still could be the case this year)and PTC may have missed the chance to improve well being and services for residents of Portland.
This proposal is set against a background of reduced and cut services by WPBC and DCC.
Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election, May 2015.
1 year from the implementation of the new precept. 2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding. If it is seen to work,councillors will be re elected, if not new councillors will be elected and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil.


There has, since 1974 been constant chatter about Portland,regaining independence, whilst not gaining complete independence,we will go a very long way towards financial independence and a greater influence with WPBC and DCC.
Portland residents will have more and better services than those in Wyke and Weymouth. It is essential that PTC hold WPBC and DCC to account for their services.

Precept set at £150 band D equivalent.
Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin.
Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council.
The amount that the revised precept will raise is not finalised, the precept base for the current year is 3251, that may change this year ( not expected to be a significant change) the council tax grant is yet to be resolved. Based on last year the sum to be received by the council is circa £480.000.

Approx Budget Wages/Admin £48.000.10%max, Caretaker £30.000. Other expenses excluding wages,£15.000 Neighbourhood plan £5.000.
Leaving approx £380,000 plus any other income. £80.000 for general strategic spending for the whole Island, for instance, a subsidised around the island bus linking Osprey leisure centre,doctors surgery, library and transport connections - 2 years free swimming lessons for all 5/6 year olds - subsidised membership to the leisure center for over 60s-Traffic calming and SIDs
Signage-public seating - pedestrian crossings in Fortunes Well - establishing a Portland festival.
Projects that are not a priority in WPBC or DCC area but are a priority to residents of Portland will be considered for funding, this will include some, not necessarily all, services supplied by DCC and WPBC.

In the spirit of localism,the nearer decisions are made to taxpayer the more likely the taxpayer will
understand and appreciate proper use of taxation. The budget to each ward will have an annual ceiling, set by PTC and limited by the amount of precept collected, communities will have to prioritise their own expenditure.
There is a possibility of discontent between wards, in that priorities will be different and some projects will work better than others.

Each ward, East, West and Underhill to have available to spent on projects £100.000
this could be further split into East £80.000 Grove £20.000 Weston 80.000 Southwell £20.000
Underhill £80.000 Castletown £20.000 ( just a suggestion,council may have different view about distribution) the projects should be one off capital projects in order to avoid the council incurring increasing revenue costs. The council should encourage match funding. Projects to be submitted quarterly to PTC for approval, an application form and criteria for projects needs to be developed.
The projects granted will need to be audited and assistance given in applying for grants and match funding applications, PTC should consider creating 2 part time or 1 full time post for a Project funding officer.(within the 10%budget)

There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC, our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community. PTC should be a commissioning council
supporting community aspirations and 'pump prime' projects. PTC should encourage sustainability of projects by applicants. Community spirt cohesiveness will be enhanced by community ownership.
Often said by existing councils, if we started a council tomorrow 'we would do it
differently' PTC is a blank canvass, by luck or judgement it has done nothing in the past. We have a opportunity to change how local government reacts on behalf of its residence.

Communications, a problem PTC has. To move forward PTC must be able to communicate closely with all residents, using traditional methods and inventing new. This will be particularly important in the caretaker management and the community distribution of monies for projects.
A mechanism for residents to vote/choose projects for their community, could use web site,Free Portland News, community meetings, community panels. Initially a significant budget would be required to ensure engagement with all residents.
PTC could consider, vacating the council chamber and inviting WPBC to provide alternative accommodation(Easton

) administrative offices for the clerk and a front desk open 10-4 5 days
It could double as a TIC and maybe share the public desk with the Police or WPBC releasing PTC offices for development by WPBC.

PTC council meetings alternating between wards, taking the council to residents.
Communities would have 4 application dates per year coinciding with the council meeting in their ward.
This would give some certainty to the applicants regarding timescale and give the council a timescale in which to manage the process

This the beginning of a new era in PTC
So basically this says we all want to be independent and run the whole island and its services ourselves but the only way for it to be completely independent is paying one council tax and that would be paid on Portland alone would it not ? But this is not feaseable as we cannot break away from the borough can we ? Most of the bits and bobs etc we should be getting from the borough council that obviously we are not getting so every Portland resident is getting asked to pay higher because of the boroughs inadequacy right? Why would we have to find those funds if it is not our fault we dont get what we should.
You are simply creating a different bill to suit those faults that the borough has created either through choice or lack of budget.
So yes this would be fine if we just paid council tax for one bill which would be for the parish council and then we would get our own police station again,full time and larger fire station etc etc and are own services and it goes on.
Sounds all far fetched and reaching to me and ends up muddying the waters even further and creating at this minute total revolt.
[quote][p][bold]debsurfs[/bold] wrote: Copied from Facebook: Obviously sent out after the December meeting From: Tim Munro Precept 2014/15 Discussion paper for Budget working group.(all figures are approx) Timescale. Early January. An informal all member meeting (clerk to set date) Mid January. Budget working group to prepare recommendations (clerk to set date) February. Full council budget setting. Agreed by Portland Town Council at December meeting. Precept has been set at £150. Band D equivalent. Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin. Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council. The reasons for my proposal to raise the precept came from the threat that Town and Parish councils may be capped by government (indeed it still could be the case this year)and PTC may have missed the chance to improve well being and services for residents of Portland. This proposal is set against a background of reduced and cut services by WPBC and DCC. Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election, May 2015. 1 year from the implementation of the new precept. 2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding. If it is seen to work,councillors will be re elected, if not new councillors will be elected and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil. There has, since 1974 been constant chatter about Portland,regaining independence, whilst not gaining complete independence,we will go a very long way towards financial independence and a greater influence with WPBC and DCC. Portland residents will have more and better services than those in Wyke and Weymouth. It is essential that PTC hold WPBC and DCC to account for their services. Precept set at £150 band D equivalent. Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin. Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council. The amount that the revised precept will raise is not finalised, the precept base for the current year is 3251, that may change this year ( not expected to be a significant change) the council tax grant is yet to be resolved. Based on last year the sum to be received by the council is circa £480.000. Approx Budget Wages/Admin £48.000.10%max, Caretaker £30.000. Other expenses excluding wages,£15.000 Neighbourhood plan £5.000. Leaving approx £380,000 plus any other income. £80.000 for general strategic spending for the whole Island, for instance, a subsidised around the island bus linking Osprey leisure centre,doctors surgery, library and transport connections - 2 years free swimming lessons for all 5/6 year olds - subsidised membership to the leisure center for over 60s-Traffic calming and SIDs Signage-public seating - pedestrian crossings in Fortunes Well - establishing a Portland festival. Projects that are not a priority in WPBC or DCC area but are a priority to residents of Portland will be considered for funding, this will include some, not necessarily all, services supplied by DCC and WPBC. In the spirit of localism,the nearer decisions are made to taxpayer the more likely the taxpayer will understand and appreciate proper use of taxation. The budget to each ward will have an annual ceiling, set by PTC and limited by the amount of precept collected, communities will have to prioritise their own expenditure. There is a possibility of discontent between wards, in that priorities will be different and some projects will work better than others. Each ward, East, West and Underhill to have available to spent on projects £100.000 this could be further split into East £80.000 Grove £20.000 Weston 80.000 Southwell £20.000 Underhill £80.000 Castletown £20.000 ( just a suggestion,council may have different view about distribution) the projects should be one off capital projects in order to avoid the council incurring increasing revenue costs. The council should encourage match funding. Projects to be submitted quarterly to PTC for approval, an application form and criteria for projects needs to be developed. The projects granted will need to be audited and assistance given in applying for grants and match funding applications, PTC should consider creating 2 part time or 1 full time post for a Project funding officer.(within the 10%budget) There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC, our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community. PTC should be a commissioning council supporting community aspirations and 'pump prime' projects. PTC should encourage sustainability of projects by applicants. Community spirt cohesiveness will be enhanced by community ownership. Often said by existing councils, if we started a council tomorrow 'we would do it differently' PTC is a blank canvass, by luck or judgement it has done nothing in the past. We have a opportunity to change how local government reacts on behalf of its residence. Communications, a problem PTC has. To move forward PTC must be able to communicate closely with all residents, using traditional methods and inventing new. This will be particularly important in the caretaker management and the community distribution of monies for projects. A mechanism for residents to vote/choose projects for their community, could use web site,Free Portland News, community meetings, community panels. Initially a significant budget would be required to ensure engagement with all residents. PTC could consider, vacating the council chamber and inviting WPBC to provide alternative accommodation(Easton ) administrative offices for the clerk and a front desk open 10-4 5 days It could double as a TIC and maybe share the public desk with the Police or WPBC releasing PTC offices for development by WPBC. PTC council meetings alternating between wards, taking the council to residents. Communities would have 4 application dates per year coinciding with the council meeting in their ward. This would give some certainty to the applicants regarding timescale and give the council a timescale in which to manage the process This the beginning of a new era in PTC[/p][/quote]So basically this says we all want to be independent and run the whole island and its services ourselves but the only way for it to be completely independent is paying one council tax and that would be paid on Portland alone would it not ? But this is not feaseable as we cannot break away from the borough can we ? Most of the bits and bobs etc we should be getting from the borough council that obviously we are not getting so every Portland resident is getting asked to pay higher because of the boroughs inadequacy right? Why would we have to find those funds if it is not our fault we dont get what we should. You are simply creating a different bill to suit those faults that the borough has created either through choice or lack of budget. So yes this would be fine if we just paid council tax for one bill which would be for the parish council and then we would get our own police station again,full time and larger fire station etc etc and are own services and it goes on. Sounds all far fetched and reaching to me and ends up muddying the waters even further and creating at this minute total revolt. doyle52

6:14pm Mon 20 Jan 14

t.munro says...

debsurfs wrote:
Copied from Facebook: Obviously sent out after the December meeting From: Tim Munro Precept 2014/15 Discussion paper for Budget working group.(all figures are approx) Timescale. Early January. An informal all member meeting (clerk to set date) Mid January. Budget working group to prepare recommendations (clerk to set date) February. Full council budget setting. Agreed by Portland Town Council at December meeting. Precept has been set at £150. Band D equivalent. Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin. Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council. The reasons for my proposal to raise the precept came from the threat that Town and Parish councils may be capped by government (indeed it still could be the case this year)and PTC may have missed the chance to improve well being and services for residents of Portland. This proposal is set against a background of reduced and cut services by WPBC and DCC. Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election, May 2015. 1 year from the implementation of the new precept. 2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding. If it is seen to work,councillors will be re elected, if not new councillors will be elected and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil. There has, since 1974 been constant chatter about Portland,regaining independence, whilst not gaining complete independence,we will go a very long way towards financial independence and a greater influence with WPBC and DCC. Portland residents will have more and better services than those in Wyke and Weymouth. It is essential that PTC hold WPBC and DCC to account for their services. Precept set at £150 band D equivalent. Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin. Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council. The amount that the revised precept will raise is not finalised, the precept base for the current year is 3251, that may change this year ( not expected to be a significant change) the council tax grant is yet to be resolved. Based on last year the sum to be received by the council is circa £480.000. Approx Budget Wages/Admin £48.000.10%max, Caretaker £30.000. Other expenses excluding wages,£15.000 Neighbourhood plan £5.000. Leaving approx £380,000 plus any other income. £80.000 for general strategic spending for the whole Island, for instance, a subsidised around the island bus linking Osprey leisure centre,doctors surgery, library and transport connections - 2 years free swimming lessons for all 5/6 year olds - subsidised membership to the leisure center for over 60s-Traffic calming and SIDs Signage-public seating - pedestrian crossings in Fortunes Well - establishing a Portland festival. Projects that are not a priority in WPBC or DCC area but are a priority to residents of Portland will be considered for funding, this will include some, not necessarily all, services supplied by DCC and WPBC. In the spirit of localism,the nearer decisions are made to taxpayer the more likely the taxpayer will understand and appreciate proper use of taxation. The budget to each ward will have an annual ceiling, set by PTC and limited by the amount of precept collected, communities will have to prioritise their own expenditure. There is a possibility of discontent between wards, in that priorities will be different and some projects will work better than others. Each ward, East, West and Underhill to have available to spent on projects £100.000 this could be further split into East £80.000 Grove £20.000 Weston 80.000 Southwell £20.000 Underhill £80.000 Castletown £20.000 ( just a suggestion,council may have different view about distribution) the projects should be one off capital projects in order to avoid the council incurring increasing revenue costs. The council should encourage match funding. Projects to be submitted quarterly to PTC for approval, an application form and criteria for projects needs to be developed. The projects granted will need to be audited and assistance given in applying for grants and match funding applications, PTC should consider creating 2 part time or 1 full time post for a Project funding officer.(within the 10%budget) There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC, our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community. PTC should be a commissioning council supporting community aspirations and 'pump prime' projects. PTC should encourage sustainability of projects by applicants. Community spirt cohesiveness will be enhanced by community ownership. Often said by existing councils, if we started a council tomorrow 'we would do it differently' PTC is a blank canvass, by luck or judgement it has done nothing in the past. We have a opportunity to change how local government reacts on behalf of its residence. Communications, a problem PTC has. To move forward PTC must be able to communicate closely with all residents, using traditional methods and inventing new. This will be particularly important in the caretaker management and the community distribution of monies for projects. A mechanism for residents to vote/choose projects for their community, could use web site,Free Portland News, community meetings, community panels. Initially a significant budget would be required to ensure engagement with all residents. PTC could consider, vacating the council chamber and inviting WPBC to provide alternative accommodation(Easton ) administrative offices for the clerk and a front desk open 10-4 5 days It could double as a TIC and maybe share the public desk with the Police or WPBC releasing PTC offices for development by WPBC. PTC council meetings alternating between wards, taking the council to residents. Communities would have 4 application dates per year coinciding with the council meeting in their ward. This would give some certainty to the applicants regarding timescale and give the council a timescale in which to manage the process This the beginning of a new era in PTC
Thank you. It was posted to the Echo and all councillors on the 23rd of December after the precept had been agreed. It is a briefing note , a basis for discussion , which should have happened in January.
[quote][p][bold]debsurfs[/bold] wrote: Copied from Facebook: Obviously sent out after the December meeting From: Tim Munro Precept 2014/15 Discussion paper for Budget working group.(all figures are approx) Timescale. Early January. An informal all member meeting (clerk to set date) Mid January. Budget working group to prepare recommendations (clerk to set date) February. Full council budget setting. Agreed by Portland Town Council at December meeting. Precept has been set at £150. Band D equivalent. Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin. Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council. The reasons for my proposal to raise the precept came from the threat that Town and Parish councils may be capped by government (indeed it still could be the case this year)and PTC may have missed the chance to improve well being and services for residents of Portland. This proposal is set against a background of reduced and cut services by WPBC and DCC. Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election, May 2015. 1 year from the implementation of the new precept. 2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding. If it is seen to work,councillors will be re elected, if not new councillors will be elected and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil. There has, since 1974 been constant chatter about Portland,regaining independence, whilst not gaining complete independence,we will go a very long way towards financial independence and a greater influence with WPBC and DCC. Portland residents will have more and better services than those in Wyke and Weymouth. It is essential that PTC hold WPBC and DCC to account for their services. Precept set at £150 band D equivalent. Maximum of 10% of precept to be used for wages and admin. Three wards to receive project monies on application to the council. The amount that the revised precept will raise is not finalised, the precept base for the current year is 3251, that may change this year ( not expected to be a significant change) the council tax grant is yet to be resolved. Based on last year the sum to be received by the council is circa £480.000. Approx Budget Wages/Admin £48.000.10%max, Caretaker £30.000. Other expenses excluding wages,£15.000 Neighbourhood plan £5.000. Leaving approx £380,000 plus any other income. £80.000 for general strategic spending for the whole Island, for instance, a subsidised around the island bus linking Osprey leisure centre,doctors surgery, library and transport connections - 2 years free swimming lessons for all 5/6 year olds - subsidised membership to the leisure center for over 60s-Traffic calming and SIDs Signage-public seating - pedestrian crossings in Fortunes Well - establishing a Portland festival. Projects that are not a priority in WPBC or DCC area but are a priority to residents of Portland will be considered for funding, this will include some, not necessarily all, services supplied by DCC and WPBC. In the spirit of localism,the nearer decisions are made to taxpayer the more likely the taxpayer will understand and appreciate proper use of taxation. The budget to each ward will have an annual ceiling, set by PTC and limited by the amount of precept collected, communities will have to prioritise their own expenditure. There is a possibility of discontent between wards, in that priorities will be different and some projects will work better than others. Each ward, East, West and Underhill to have available to spent on projects £100.000 this could be further split into East £80.000 Grove £20.000 Weston 80.000 Southwell £20.000 Underhill £80.000 Castletown £20.000 ( just a suggestion,council may have different view about distribution) the projects should be one off capital projects in order to avoid the council incurring increasing revenue costs. The council should encourage match funding. Projects to be submitted quarterly to PTC for approval, an application form and criteria for projects needs to be developed. The projects granted will need to be audited and assistance given in applying for grants and match funding applications, PTC should consider creating 2 part time or 1 full time post for a Project funding officer.(within the 10%budget) There should be a reluctance to automatically taking on services that are being cut or abandoned by WPBC or DCC, our role must be to provide funds and resources for projects,services and benefits that are tailored to the Portland community. PTC should be a commissioning council supporting community aspirations and 'pump prime' projects. PTC should encourage sustainability of projects by applicants. Community spirt cohesiveness will be enhanced by community ownership. Often said by existing councils, if we started a council tomorrow 'we would do it differently' PTC is a blank canvass, by luck or judgement it has done nothing in the past. We have a opportunity to change how local government reacts on behalf of its residence. Communications, a problem PTC has. To move forward PTC must be able to communicate closely with all residents, using traditional methods and inventing new. This will be particularly important in the caretaker management and the community distribution of monies for projects. A mechanism for residents to vote/choose projects for their community, could use web site,Free Portland News, community meetings, community panels. Initially a significant budget would be required to ensure engagement with all residents. PTC could consider, vacating the council chamber and inviting WPBC to provide alternative accommodation(Easton ) administrative offices for the clerk and a front desk open 10-4 5 days It could double as a TIC and maybe share the public desk with the Police or WPBC releasing PTC offices for development by WPBC. PTC council meetings alternating between wards, taking the council to residents. Communities would have 4 application dates per year coinciding with the council meeting in their ward. This would give some certainty to the applicants regarding timescale and give the council a timescale in which to manage the process This the beginning of a new era in PTC[/p][/quote]Thank you. It was posted to the Echo and all councillors on the 23rd of December after the precept had been agreed. It is a briefing note , a basis for discussion , which should have happened in January. t.munro

6:14pm Mon 20 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

portland maid wrote:
cor! didnt you find that easy Deb! Cut and paste, who knew?!
You know it would have taken a Portland Town Councillor all day not to think of that. :-)
[quote][p][bold]portland maid[/bold] wrote: cor! didnt you find that easy Deb! Cut and paste, who knew?![/p][/quote]You know it would have taken a Portland Town Councillor all day not to think of that. :-) David_divenghy2

6:18pm Mon 20 Jan 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
Mr Munro, you have been on this site since 9:14 this morning dodging questions and making every excuse to avoid them.

You had been asked politiley to answer some questions, while displaying a great deal of presumption about local tax payers and what they can or cannot afford.

You do not need to get home to answer who administers the website and are any monies paid to anyone for it, you do not need to get home to answer why , despite statements by central council about such, the minutes have not been updated for 6 months.

I can accept that maybe you need to get home to retrieve a copy of the proposal, had you simply said that from thew start instead of spending the entire day dodging it, that would have been that.

So when you get home, I trust a link to the copy of your proposal will be forthcoming on here. Then maybe an explanation from the council as to why it was not on the official site prior to the vote along with the why the minutes have not been published fro 6 months.

There's no point in speaking about some CLOSED facebook group that people should not have to join and never heard of, and on top of which you don't even post a link to it.

In two seconds flat a Google search will give you a thousand free open file forwarding/deposit websites you could upload it to in seconds and post the link here. Simple as that. costs nothing.
You could try sendspace.com for example there are many , no registering required. takes seconds.
Talking of fudging questions, do you live on Portland!
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Mr Munro, you have been on this site since 9:14 this morning dodging questions and making every excuse to avoid them. You had been asked politiley to answer some questions, while displaying a great deal of presumption about local tax payers and what they can or cannot afford. You do not need to get home to answer who administers the website and are any monies paid to anyone for it, you do not need to get home to answer why , despite statements by central council about such, the minutes have not been updated for 6 months. I can accept that maybe you need to get home to retrieve a copy of the proposal, had you simply said that from thew start instead of spending the entire day dodging it, that would have been that. So when you get home, I trust a link to the copy of your proposal will be forthcoming on here. Then maybe an explanation from the council as to why it was not on the official site prior to the vote along with the why the minutes have not been published fro 6 months. There's no point in speaking about some CLOSED facebook group that people should not have to join and never heard of, and on top of which you don't even post a link to it. In two seconds flat a Google search will give you a thousand free open file forwarding/deposit websites you could upload it to in seconds and post the link here. Simple as that. costs nothing. You could try sendspace.com for example there are many , no registering required. takes seconds.[/p][/quote]Talking of fudging questions, do you live on Portland! woodsedge

6:20pm Mon 20 Jan 14

drsymes says...

t.munro wrote:
drsymes wrote:
I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise.

How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?
Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions.
David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help.
Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit
I just think it’s important to stick to facts when on forums like this. The fact is that I have spoken to 5 members of the council that thought they were voting for the idea in PRINCIPLE for further discussion.
Your claims were that all of the council voted in favour of the precept rise. I just think it’s better for the community to be given the knowledge of the facts.
You have clearly answered my fact

“Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for.”

Clearly confusion reigns – do you feel that this council is ready to handle half a million of resident’s money when they don’t even know what they are voting on?
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?[/p][/quote]Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions. David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help. Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit[/p][/quote]I just think it’s important to stick to facts when on forums like this. The fact is that I have spoken to 5 members of the council that thought they were voting for the idea in PRINCIPLE for further discussion. Your claims were that all of the council voted in favour of the precept rise. I just think it’s better for the community to be given the knowledge of the facts. You have clearly answered my fact “Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for.” Clearly confusion reigns – do you feel that this council is ready to handle half a million of resident’s money when they don’t even know what they are voting on? drsymes

6:26pm Mon 20 Jan 14

drsymes says...

t.munro wrote:
drsymes wrote:
I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise.

How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?
Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions.
David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help.
Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit
You mention organisations I work so hard for?

Yes I and 30 plus other volunteers have worked hard for Portland United Youth Football Club over the past 14 years. This ensures that our 230 youth members can enjoy the national sport on a weekly basis.

As for organising community bids – as I said at last week’s Town Council meeting (when the Mayor Cllr Les Ames), kindly broke protocol to allow the community to speak;

“It is my feeling that groups that form simply because there is a pot of money available, are often not the groups have long lasting sustainability."
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?[/p][/quote]Then maybe they did get it wrong, it pays to understand what you are voting for. Still leave s seven who did. That question is for those individuals who claim after the event. What do think an in principles decision is, if it is not an agreement to raise the precept. No one put forward different wording or an amendment to make it dependant on other actions. David, I really thought you where in favour of investing in the Island, you are as happy to ask, as we are happy to give, when the organisations you work so hard for want a grant. Plenty of others like you that would like help. Thought you might be someone that would organise community bids and projects. Ah well, easier to discredit[/p][/quote]You mention organisations I work so hard for? Yes I and 30 plus other volunteers have worked hard for Portland United Youth Football Club over the past 14 years. This ensures that our 230 youth members can enjoy the national sport on a weekly basis. As for organising community bids – as I said at last week’s Town Council meeting (when the Mayor Cllr Les Ames), kindly broke protocol to allow the community to speak; “It is my feeling that groups that form simply because there is a pot of money available, are often not the groups have long lasting sustainability." drsymes

6:30pm Mon 20 Jan 14

debsurfs says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
portland maid wrote:
cor! didnt you find that easy Deb! Cut and paste, who knew?!
You know it would have taken a Portland Town Councillor all day not to think of that. :-)
Guess I'm not town councillor material then - that's a relief!
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portland maid[/bold] wrote: cor! didnt you find that easy Deb! Cut and paste, who knew?![/p][/quote]You know it would have taken a Portland Town Councillor all day not to think of that. :-)[/p][/quote]Guess I'm not town councillor material then - that's a relief! debsurfs

6:37pm Mon 20 Jan 14

doyle52 says...

Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election, May 2015.
1 year from the implementation of the new precept. 2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding. If it is seen to work,councillors will be re elected, if not new councillors will be elected and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil.
Mmmmm thats not when your up for mayor is it Mr M? Will look good havin you dishing out the cash eh? Just take it your proposal is **** !!
Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election, May 2015. 1 year from the implementation of the new precept. 2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding. If it is seen to work,councillors will be re elected, if not new councillors will be elected and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil. Mmmmm thats not when your up for mayor is it Mr M? Will look good havin you dishing out the cash eh? Just take it your proposal is **** !! doyle52

7:01pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Foursite says...

doyle52 wrote:
Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election, May 2015.
1 year from the implementation of the new precept. 2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding. If it is seen to work,councillors will be re elected, if not new councillors will be elected and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil.
Mmmmm thats not when your up for mayor is it Mr M? Will look good havin you dishing out the cash eh? Just take it your proposal is **** !!
As I said in an earlier post doyle52 "feathering his nest"
but MUNRO does not see it like that.
[quote][p][bold]doyle52[/bold] wrote: Another factor,when making my proposal,was that there is a PTC election, May 2015. 1 year from the implementation of the new precept. 2015 elections could be seen as a referendum on the success of ward funding. If it is seen to work,councillors will be re elected, if not new councillors will be elected and will be able to re set the precept to any level including nil. Mmmmm thats not when your up for mayor is it Mr M? Will look good havin you dishing out the cash eh? Just take it your proposal is **** !![/p][/quote]As I said in an earlier post doyle52 "feathering his nest" but MUNRO does not see it like that. Foursite

7:06pm Mon 20 Jan 14

common cence says...

portlandresident wrote:
Mr Munro, if what you say is correct, and that PTC really is only an advisor to the bigger council. As we all know, WPBC doesn't listen to anyone anyway, wouldn't it make more financial sense to abolish PTC all together? After all, it is quite evident that it no longer serves any useful purpose, other than to host your family meetings?
I AGREE WITH THIS
[quote][p][bold]portlandresident[/bold] wrote: Mr Munro, if what you say is correct, and that PTC really is only an advisor to the bigger council. As we all know, WPBC doesn't listen to anyone anyway, wouldn't it make more financial sense to abolish PTC all together? After all, it is quite evident that it no longer serves any useful purpose, other than to host your family meetings?[/p][/quote]I AGREE WITH THIS common cence

7:27pm Mon 20 Jan 14

craigbastow1@outlook.com says...

can john thorner confirm if taxi fares will be on the increase on the island !!
can john thorner confirm if taxi fares will be on the increase on the island !! craigbastow1@outlook.com

7:31pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Bollard says...

So, I now understand what is going on. Portland councillors are not happy with the current setup and are using a this massive council tax increase to try and buy themselves some form of independence.
So, I now understand what is going on. Portland councillors are not happy with the current setup and are using a this massive council tax increase to try and buy themselves some form of independence. Bollard

7:49pm Mon 20 Jan 14

dark side says...

Mr Munro
You proposed this increase,the reason the parish councils precept might be capped. And you wanted to collect the money now before it is late, this is only reason. You never consulted with the people of Portland to ask there views, I have spoken to people today who still no nothing about this increase You are clearly out of touch with people in you community, other wise you would of not proposed this ridiculous increase that we are having forced on us.is it no wonder people are annoyed and upset,you're attitude it's only 20 pence, a pint of beer you're words. If they don't like it vote us out in 2015.The PTC cant even keep there own Webb site up together,let a lone manage 500.000 budget. You go on about the best for Portland and it's people, if the council wants to go forward they must get the people of Portland on side.By engaging with them and listening to the them. you might not like what you hear but that's being open.and how partnerships are built. I not saying this just to be nasty,but i haven't heard a good word said about you, what will you Legacy be Mr Munro?Let me tell you ''THE COUNCLOR THAT FINISHED PTC.''This would be a shame,because there are a few good councillors that are passionate about the island.
Mr Munro You proposed this increase,the reason the parish councils precept might be capped. And you wanted to collect the money now before it is late, this is only reason. You never consulted with the people of Portland to ask there views, I have spoken to people today who still no nothing about this increase You are clearly out of touch with people in you community, other wise you would of not proposed this ridiculous increase that we are having forced on us.is it no wonder people are annoyed and upset,you're attitude it's only 20 pence, a pint of beer you're words. If they don't like it vote us out in 2015.The PTC cant even keep there own Webb site up together,let a lone manage 500.000 budget. You go on about the best for Portland and it's people, if the council wants to go forward they must get the people of Portland on side.By engaging with them and listening to the them. you might not like what you hear but that's being open.and how partnerships are built. I not saying this just to be nasty,but i haven't heard a good word said about you, what will you Legacy be Mr Munro?Let me tell you ''THE COUNCLOR THAT FINISHED PTC.''This would be a shame,because there are a few good councillors that are passionate about the island. dark side

8:08pm Mon 20 Jan 14

radiator says...

I sincerely hope that all the members of the council will be attending the meeting on the 27th, I have noticed that only Munro has answered any questions on this matter, why hasnt any other members put any answers on this forum especially the other Munro's.
I sincerely hope that all the members of the council will be attending the meeting on the 27th, I have noticed that only Munro has answered any questions on this matter, why hasnt any other members put any answers on this forum especially the other Munro's. radiator

8:10pm Mon 20 Jan 14

doyle52 says...

radiator wrote:
I sincerely hope that all the members of the council will be attending the meeting on the 27th, I have noticed that only Munro has answered any questions on this matter, why hasnt any other members put any answers on this forum especially the other Munro's.
Just goes to show none of them have a voice in session or out of it so were to make our own minds up who is the pied piper!!
[quote][p][bold]radiator[/bold] wrote: I sincerely hope that all the members of the council will be attending the meeting on the 27th, I have noticed that only Munro has answered any questions on this matter, why hasnt any other members put any answers on this forum especially the other Munro's.[/p][/quote]Just goes to show none of them have a voice in session or out of it so were to make our own minds up who is the pied piper!! doyle52

9:34pm Mon 20 Jan 14

minesascotch says...

Get a grip wrote:
Let them eat Portland dough cake

Joke
Good old John Thorner this reminds me of Maggie Thatchers hated pole tax and all those of us that refused to pay, Portland we can do it again pay our council tax but withhold the precept last time we clogged the courts up for months I say refuse to pay but we must stand together.
[quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke[/p][/quote]Good old John Thorner this reminds me of Maggie Thatchers hated pole tax and all those of us that refused to pay, Portland we can do it again pay our council tax but withhold the precept last time we clogged the courts up for months I say refuse to pay but we must stand together. minesascotch

9:51pm Mon 20 Jan 14

yellowhunter13 says...

I wont be paying them any of the precept because none of us will be paying it ! Going to have this bunch of bandits wiped from Portlands history because it needs a white washing or what some would call a good spring clean enoughs enough of the muppet brigade !! Starting again could be an option but anyone with the name Munro perhaps not. Nor would we want gutless wonders who ask how high they jump or where do we sign so easily. And possibly all 12 could come up with a precept plan each for the community to mull over rather than chucking it down ya throat mentality.
Whatever cause this aint working is it.
I wont be paying them any of the precept because none of us will be paying it ! Going to have this bunch of bandits wiped from Portlands history because it needs a white washing or what some would call a good spring clean enoughs enough of the muppet brigade !! Starting again could be an option but anyone with the name Munro perhaps not. Nor would we want gutless wonders who ask how high they jump or where do we sign so easily. And possibly all 12 could come up with a precept plan each for the community to mull over rather than chucking it down ya throat mentality. Whatever cause this aint working is it. yellowhunter13

10:22pm Mon 20 Jan 14

stone.d says...

Absolutely ridiculous for the average householder.
It's ok saying if you don't like it you can vote us out next time round but that'll be too late, it'll have been introduced and won't get removed after. PTC, or the majority of councillors are obviously earning very nicely if they welcome such an increase.
Typical politicians, detached from reality and not representing the good of Portlanders.
Absolutely ridiculous for the average householder. It's ok saying if you don't like it you can vote us out next time round but that'll be too late, it'll have been introduced and won't get removed after. PTC, or the majority of councillors are obviously earning very nicely if they welcome such an increase. Typical politicians, detached from reality and not representing the good of Portlanders. stone.d

10:23pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Saddler says...

DanWey wrote:
Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?
This on top of what you pay in Weymouth!
[quote][p][bold]DanWey[/bold] wrote: Why do Portlanders currently pay so little?[/p][/quote]This on top of what you pay in Weymouth! Saddler

10:52pm Mon 20 Jan 14

John New says...

Cap the tax - yes at zero £ please and ASAP not in 2015. Cnr Munro argued above we need to return pride etc in the Island (no problem with that idea). His Prime Minister (CnrTM it is suggested is a Tory on WPBC) wants community involvement by volunteers. Scrap PTC, support the government's line. Work to restore pride in the Island as a volunteer. Everyone wins.
Cap the tax - yes at zero £ please and ASAP not in 2015. Cnr Munro argued above we need to return pride etc in the Island (no problem with that idea). His Prime Minister (CnrTM it is suggested is a Tory on WPBC) wants community involvement by volunteers. Scrap PTC, support the government's line. Work to restore pride in the Island as a volunteer. Everyone wins. John New

11:02pm Mon 20 Jan 14

banknote says...

minesascotch wrote:
Get a grip wrote:
Let them eat Portland dough cake

Joke
Good old John Thorner this reminds me of Maggie Thatchers hated pole tax and all those of us that refused to pay, Portland we can do it again pay our council tax but withhold the precept last time we clogged the courts up for months I say refuse to pay but we must stand together.
What on earth is a "pole" tax - something to do with telephone poles?

No, Maggie Thatcher introduced a Poll Tax

Your grasp of political theory is almost as bad as the Munro clan1
[quote][p][bold]minesascotch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: Let them eat Portland dough cake Joke[/p][/quote]Good old John Thorner this reminds me of Maggie Thatchers hated pole tax and all those of us that refused to pay, Portland we can do it again pay our council tax but withhold the precept last time we clogged the courts up for months I say refuse to pay but we must stand together.[/p][/quote]What on earth is a "pole" tax - something to do with telephone poles? No, Maggie Thatcher introduced a Poll Tax Your grasp of political theory is almost as bad as the Munro clan1 banknote

12:24am Tue 21 Jan 14

dabtv says...

How was it that 4 people from the same family were allowed to become councillors on the same council, surely this is a breach of our British democracy.

I get the feeling that the Munro family believe they are the Lords of the Manor, but as we saw today,(Lord Rennard) Lord's can be suspended!
How was it that 4 people from the same family were allowed to become councillors on the same council, surely this is a breach of our British democracy. I get the feeling that the Munro family believe they are the Lords of the Manor, but as we saw today,(Lord Rennard) Lord's can be suspended! dabtv

1:49am Tue 21 Jan 14

Richie T says...

You actually do not have to pay council tax, as the council is only a corporation. This needs your consent for you to pay. Any act of parliament can only be enforced upon the consent of the governed.

Google 'Meet your strawman' and look at the youtube video which pops up (looks like old black/white cartoon). Many places to help you too such as thebcgroup.org.uk, tpuc.org, fmotl.com - the relevant forums will have success stories on people who have refused to pay this 'tax' and instructions on what to do. - Of course... you wont hear about this on the media, bbc news etc....

Get informed and stick to your guns... and understand the difference between legal and lawful (lawful = common law) - save yourself a fortune!

Unless you have a contract, which you have agreed to (by consent), you dont have to pay.
You actually do not have to pay council tax, as the council is only a corporation. This needs your consent for you to pay. Any act of parliament can only be enforced upon the consent of the governed. Google 'Meet your strawman' and look at the youtube video which pops up (looks like old black/white cartoon). Many places to help you too such as thebcgroup.org.uk, tpuc.org, fmotl.com - the relevant forums will have success stories on people who have refused to pay this 'tax' and instructions on what to do. - Of course... you wont hear about this on the media, bbc news etc.... Get informed and stick to your guns... and understand the difference between legal and lawful (lawful = common law) - save yourself a fortune! Unless you have a contract, which you have agreed to (by consent), you dont have to pay. Richie T

5:24am Tue 21 Jan 14

connie68 says...

Can't be that many Band D properties on the island is there, hardly a lot of money is it per day 0.41, take it in the chin and get over it! If you can afford a Band D you can afford that!
Can't be that many Band D properties on the island is there, hardly a lot of money is it per day 0.41, take it in the chin and get over it! If you can afford a Band D you can afford that! connie68

6:56am Tue 21 Jan 14

17th Earl of Fortuneswell says...

connie68 wrote:
Can't be that many Band D properties on the island is there, hardly a lot of money is it per day 0.41, take it in the chin and get over it! If you can afford a Band D you can afford that!
Oh look someone else who hasn't read the whole story. The example quoted is for Band D ONLY. Every other band will see a pro-rata rise that includes believe it or not people in Band A & B who are by definition largely those on lower incomes, if my fag packet maths are correct it is still over GBP100 per year for the lowest band, an extra tenner a council tax payment. You also need to remember that there is a lot of social housing on the Island and there is a traditional hefty rise due at the same time, not to mention increases in food & utilities. So stop sneering about it being only 41p per day until you take ALL things into consideration.
[quote][p][bold]connie68[/bold] wrote: Can't be that many Band D properties on the island is there, hardly a lot of money is it per day 0.41, take it in the chin and get over it! If you can afford a Band D you can afford that![/p][/quote]Oh look someone else who hasn't read the whole story. The example quoted is for Band D ONLY. Every other band will see a pro-rata rise that includes believe it or not people in Band A & B who are by definition largely those on lower incomes, if my fag packet maths are correct it is still over GBP100 per year for the lowest band, an extra tenner a council tax payment. You also need to remember that there is a lot of social housing on the Island and there is a traditional hefty rise due at the same time, not to mention increases in food & utilities. So stop sneering about it being only 41p per day until you take ALL things into consideration. 17th Earl of Fortuneswell

7:10am Tue 21 Jan 14

dark side says...

Mr Munro if the PTC Persist with the Large increase, without consulting with the people of Portland. When PTC has this 500.000 pounds in the bank Will you call for a referendum on the island, to ask the people of Portland if they still want a PTC.Instead of making us wait until 2015?I a referendum cost a lot of money, you said the PTC would ask how we would like to spend some of this large sum of money. Spend some of it on a referendum!!! YES OR NO ?
Mr Munro if the PTC Persist with the Large increase, without consulting with the people of Portland. When PTC has this 500.000 pounds in the bank Will you call for a referendum on the island, to ask the people of Portland if they still want a PTC.Instead of making us wait until 2015?I a referendum cost a lot of money, you said the PTC would ask how we would like to spend some of this large sum of money. Spend some of it on a referendum!!! YES OR NO ? dark side

8:45am Tue 21 Jan 14

chisweller says...

Cllr Les Ames Elected
Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted
Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected
Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opte
d
Cllr Rob Hughes Elected
Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted
Cllr Amanda Munro Elected
Cllr Tim Munro Elected
Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected
Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected
Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted
Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted
Cllr Rod Wild Elected

Over a third not even elected last time around, Ttime to do away with this pointless,self serving, ego burnishing, toy town, empire building, embarrassment of a council.
Cllr Les Ames Elected Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opte d Cllr Rob Hughes Elected Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted Cllr Amanda Munro Elected Cllr Tim Munro Elected Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted Cllr Rod Wild Elected Over a third not even elected last time around, Ttime to do away with this pointless,self serving, ego burnishing, toy town, empire building, embarrassment of a council. chisweller

9:34am Tue 21 Jan 14

Foursite says...

chisweller wrote:
Cllr Les Ames Elected
Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted
Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected
Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opte

d
Cllr Rob Hughes Elected
Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted
Cllr Amanda Munro Elected
Cllr Tim Munro Elected
Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected
Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected
Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted
Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted
Cllr Rod Wild Elected

Over a third not even elected last time around, Ttime to do away with this pointless,self serving, ego burnishing, toy town, empire building, embarrassment of a council.
Hang on chisweller, you forget the bloke who seconded this ridiculous proposal Nobody appears to know him as indeed you don't .A northerner who recently purchased St Peters church.?
[quote][p][bold]chisweller[/bold] wrote: Cllr Les Ames Elected Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opte d Cllr Rob Hughes Elected Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted Cllr Amanda Munro Elected Cllr Tim Munro Elected Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted Cllr Rod Wild Elected Over a third not even elected last time around, Ttime to do away with this pointless,self serving, ego burnishing, toy town, empire building, embarrassment of a council.[/p][/quote]Hang on chisweller, you forget the bloke who seconded this ridiculous proposal Nobody appears to know him as indeed you don't .A northerner who recently purchased St Peters church.? Foursite

10:41am Tue 21 Jan 14

t.munro says...

dark side wrote:
Mr Munro if the PTC Persist with the Large increase, without consulting with the people of Portland. When PTC has this 500.000 pounds in the bank Will you call for a referendum on the island, to ask the people of Portland if they still want a PTC.Instead of making us wait until 2015?I a referendum cost a lot of money, you said the PTC would ask how we would like to spend some of this large sum of money. Spend some of it on a referendum!!! YES OR NO ?
Not my decision, that will be for the council to decide.
I would like to see services and facilities improve, don't you?
[quote][p][bold]dark side[/bold] wrote: Mr Munro if the PTC Persist with the Large increase, without consulting with the people of Portland. When PTC has this 500.000 pounds in the bank Will you call for a referendum on the island, to ask the people of Portland if they still want a PTC.Instead of making us wait until 2015?I a referendum cost a lot of money, you said the PTC would ask how we would like to spend some of this large sum of money. Spend some of it on a referendum!!! YES OR NO ?[/p][/quote]Not my decision, that will be for the council to decide. I would like to see services and facilities improve, don't you? t.munro

10:45am Tue 21 Jan 14

yellowhunter13 says...

Foursite wrote:
chisweller wrote:
Cllr Les Ames Elected
Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted
Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected
Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opte


d
Cllr Rob Hughes Elected
Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted
Cllr Amanda Munro Elected
Cllr Tim Munro Elected
Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected
Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected
Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted
Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted
Cllr Rod Wild Elected

Over a third not even elected last time around, Ttime to do away with this pointless,self serving, ego burnishing, toy town, empire building, embarrassment of a council.
Hang on chisweller, you forget the bloke who seconded this ridiculous proposal Nobody appears to know him as indeed you don't .A northerner who recently purchased St Peters church.?
I seem to remember this chap from up north doing the rounds a few months back going door to door reading poetry and saying he was the new saviour of Portland and he would have the place back to some kind of good times!
Does that sound like the chap Foresite?? He told me and frenchy and her husband eric he had on been on the island a short time so how could he possibly vote for the good and future and Portland?
Madness!
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chisweller[/bold] wrote: Cllr Les Ames Elected Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opte d Cllr Rob Hughes Elected Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted Cllr Amanda Munro Elected Cllr Tim Munro Elected Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted Cllr Rod Wild Elected Over a third not even elected last time around, Ttime to do away with this pointless,self serving, ego burnishing, toy town, empire building, embarrassment of a council.[/p][/quote]Hang on chisweller, you forget the bloke who seconded this ridiculous proposal Nobody appears to know him as indeed you don't .A northerner who recently purchased St Peters church.?[/p][/quote]I seem to remember this chap from up north doing the rounds a few months back going door to door reading poetry and saying he was the new saviour of Portland and he would have the place back to some kind of good times! Does that sound like the chap Foresite?? He told me and frenchy and her husband eric he had on been on the island a short time so how could he possibly vote for the good and future and Portland? Madness! yellowhunter13

10:59am Tue 21 Jan 14

elloello1980 says...

t.munro wrote:
Saund65 wrote:
t.munro wrote:
portland rebel wrote: so the long and the short of it is, we need to pay £150 a year to the town council so that they can deliver services that we should already be getting that we dont, that we already pay for.............err shouldnt our so called councillors be fighting for these services rather than asking us to subsidize wpbc for the appalling service.
Portland Rebel, Services they have cut, not ones that they are or should be providing. I
So, why should you be asking us to pay for those services again? You should, as an elected town councillor, be fighting W&PBC and DCC to make sure those services are reinstated - not asking the very people who you serve to pay again? It is madness and quite frankly - what were you as a Town Council thinking? Regardless whether people can afford it, it is not for you to decide, without a mandate from your constituents, that this is the way forward. A very misguided, arrogant and pompous view taken by one family.
I am feed up now, being subject to personal abuse. It was my proposal voted on by the coucillors there. I will post my proposal later. It is a trial to be constantly abused. I have attempted to engage and answer what I can. I suggest you go and abuse someone else. Good evening
A man this weak should not in such a role!

Who's abusing you? Stop playing the 'abuse' card and answer the people of Portland!
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saund65[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: so the long and the short of it is, we need to pay £150 a year to the town council so that they can deliver services that we should already be getting that we dont, that we already pay for.............err shouldnt our so called councillors be fighting for these services rather than asking us to subsidize wpbc for the appalling service.[/p][/quote]Portland Rebel, Services they have cut, not ones that they are or should be providing. I[/p][/quote]So, why should you be asking us to pay for those services again? You should, as an elected town councillor, be fighting W&PBC and DCC to make sure those services are reinstated - not asking the very people who you serve to pay again? It is madness and quite frankly - what were you as a Town Council thinking? Regardless whether people can afford it, it is not for you to decide, without a mandate from your constituents, that this is the way forward. A very misguided, arrogant and pompous view taken by one family.[/p][/quote]I am feed up now, being subject to personal abuse. It was my proposal voted on by the coucillors there. I will post my proposal later. It is a trial to be constantly abused. I have attempted to engage and answer what I can. I suggest you go and abuse someone else. Good evening[/p][/quote]A man this weak should not in such a role! Who's abusing you? Stop playing the 'abuse' card and answer the people of Portland! elloello1980

11:09am Tue 21 Jan 14

elloello1980 says...

Richie T wrote:
You actually do not have to pay council tax, as the council is only a corporation. This needs your consent for you to pay. Any act of parliament can only be enforced upon the consent of the governed. Google 'Meet your strawman' and look at the youtube video which pops up (looks like old black/white cartoon). Many places to help you too such as thebcgroup.org.uk, tpuc.org, fmotl.com - the relevant forums will have success stories on people who have refused to pay this 'tax' and instructions on what to do. - Of course... you wont hear about this on the media, bbc news etc.... Get informed and stick to your guns... and understand the difference between legal and lawful (lawful = common law) - save yourself a fortune! Unless you have a contract, which you have agreed to (by consent), you dont have to pay.
Are you saying you do not pay council tax?
[quote][p][bold]Richie T[/bold] wrote: You actually do not have to pay council tax, as the council is only a corporation. This needs your consent for you to pay. Any act of parliament can only be enforced upon the consent of the governed. Google 'Meet your strawman' and look at the youtube video which pops up (looks like old black/white cartoon). Many places to help you too such as thebcgroup.org.uk, tpuc.org, fmotl.com - the relevant forums will have success stories on people who have refused to pay this 'tax' and instructions on what to do. - Of course... you wont hear about this on the media, bbc news etc.... Get informed and stick to your guns... and understand the difference between legal and lawful (lawful = common law) - save yourself a fortune! Unless you have a contract, which you have agreed to (by consent), you dont have to pay.[/p][/quote]Are you saying you do not pay council tax? elloello1980

11:19am Tue 21 Jan 14

notweymouth says...

This all sounds like a total shambles reminiscent of "The Vicar of Dibley". PTC should be torn up and we should start again.

For a start, as noone at the council seems capable of spending 5 minutes ftp'ing a pdf file to the web server, how about creating a Facebook Group called Portland Town Council and posting the minutes there. 5 Minute Job.
This all sounds like a total shambles reminiscent of "The Vicar of Dibley". PTC should be torn up and we should start again. For a start, as noone at the council seems capable of spending 5 minutes ftp'ing a pdf file to the web server, how about creating a Facebook Group called Portland Town Council and posting the minutes there. 5 Minute Job. notweymouth

11:35am Tue 21 Jan 14

prestonpete says...

Tim please. Just face it, you've dragged us all into a pit that we can't get out of. You'll have to face the wrath of the masses very soon. We know now that Portland Town Council don't have any ability to do anything, other than suggest to the Weymouth Council what should happen. Then, and even then, they still might choose not to do whatever PTC suggest. So, what's the point in higher taxes for an organisation that can't guarantee better service?????
.
Yes, we all want to see facilities improve on Portland, but if WPBC don't want to co-operate or accept PTC's suggestions, or don't agree, what's the point in a PTC? I'd sooner we get rid of the PTC all together. It's clearly costing too much! Also, I'd like you and your family to stand down, and let the PTC become more impartial. You all carry too much power, and it's not fair, and doesn't make for equal fair voting.
Tim please. Just face it, you've dragged us all into a pit that we can't get out of. You'll have to face the wrath of the masses very soon. We know now that Portland Town Council don't have any ability to do anything, other than suggest to the Weymouth Council what should happen. Then, and even then, they still might choose not to do whatever PTC suggest. So, what's the point in higher taxes for an organisation that can't guarantee better service????? . Yes, we all want to see facilities improve on Portland, but if WPBC don't want to co-operate or accept PTC's suggestions, or don't agree, what's the point in a PTC? I'd sooner we get rid of the PTC all together. It's clearly costing too much! Also, I'd like you and your family to stand down, and let the PTC become more impartial. You all carry too much power, and it's not fair, and doesn't make for equal fair voting. prestonpete

11:39am Tue 21 Jan 14

chisweller says...

Foursite wrote:
chisweller wrote:
Cllr Les Ames Elected
Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted
Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected
Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opte


d
Cllr Rob Hughes Elected
Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted
Cllr Amanda Munro Elected
Cllr Tim Munro Elected
Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected
Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected
Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted
Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted
Cllr Rod Wild Elected

Over a third not even elected last time around, Ttime to do away with this pointless,self serving, ego burnishing, toy town, empire building, embarrassment of a council.
Hang on chisweller, you forget the bloke who seconded this ridiculous proposal Nobody appears to know him as indeed you don't .A northerner who recently purchased St Peters church.?
Yes , who is he? I took this information from the website, obviously it's out of date on this issue as on everything else.!!
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chisweller[/bold] wrote: Cllr Les Ames Elected Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opte d Cllr Rob Hughes Elected Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted Cllr Amanda Munro Elected Cllr Tim Munro Elected Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted Cllr Rod Wild Elected Over a third not even elected last time around, Ttime to do away with this pointless,self serving, ego burnishing, toy town, empire building, embarrassment of a council.[/p][/quote]Hang on chisweller, you forget the bloke who seconded this ridiculous proposal Nobody appears to know him as indeed you don't .A northerner who recently purchased St Peters church.?[/p][/quote]Yes , who is he? I took this information from the website, obviously it's out of date on this issue as on everything else.!! chisweller

11:41am Tue 21 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

notweymouth wrote:
This all sounds like a total shambles reminiscent of "The Vicar of Dibley". PTC should be torn up and we should start again.

For a start, as noone at the council seems capable of spending 5 minutes ftp'ing a pdf file to the web server, how about creating a Facebook Group called Portland Town Council and posting the minutes there. 5 Minute Job.
I even gave him a link to a site he could have uploaded it to in about 20 seconds. He has still refused to answer who administers the town council website, why it is 6 months negligent of publishing its minutes and is anyone paid money for its administration?
[quote][p][bold]notweymouth[/bold] wrote: This all sounds like a total shambles reminiscent of "The Vicar of Dibley". PTC should be torn up and we should start again. For a start, as noone at the council seems capable of spending 5 minutes ftp'ing a pdf file to the web server, how about creating a Facebook Group called Portland Town Council and posting the minutes there. 5 Minute Job.[/p][/quote]I even gave him a link to a site he could have uploaded it to in about 20 seconds. He has still refused to answer who administers the town council website, why it is 6 months negligent of publishing its minutes and is anyone paid money for its administration? David_divenghy2

11:43am Tue 21 Jan 14

yellowhunter13 says...

prestonpete wrote:
Tim please. Just face it, you've dragged us all into a pit that we can't get out of. You'll have to face the wrath of the masses very soon. We know now that Portland Town Council don't have any ability to do anything, other than suggest to the Weymouth Council what should happen. Then, and even then, they still might choose not to do whatever PTC suggest. So, what's the point in higher taxes for an organisation that can't guarantee better service?????
.
Yes, we all want to see facilities improve on Portland, but if WPBC don't want to co-operate or accept PTC's suggestions, or don't agree, what's the point in a PTC? I'd sooner we get rid of the PTC all together. It's clearly costing too much! Also, I'd like you and your family to stand down, and let the PTC become more impartial. You all carry too much power, and it's not fair, and doesn't make for equal fair voting.
He says he wants to listen to the community of Portland well are you actually listening because its a resounding get stuffed and go.
Thats not my comment but reading everything on all forums makes the comment and advice itself doesnt it.
[quote][p][bold]prestonpete[/bold] wrote: Tim please. Just face it, you've dragged us all into a pit that we can't get out of. You'll have to face the wrath of the masses very soon. We know now that Portland Town Council don't have any ability to do anything, other than suggest to the Weymouth Council what should happen. Then, and even then, they still might choose not to do whatever PTC suggest. So, what's the point in higher taxes for an organisation that can't guarantee better service????? . Yes, we all want to see facilities improve on Portland, but if WPBC don't want to co-operate or accept PTC's suggestions, or don't agree, what's the point in a PTC? I'd sooner we get rid of the PTC all together. It's clearly costing too much! Also, I'd like you and your family to stand down, and let the PTC become more impartial. You all carry too much power, and it's not fair, and doesn't make for equal fair voting.[/p][/quote]He says he wants to listen to the community of Portland well are you actually listening because its a resounding get stuffed and go. Thats not my comment but reading everything on all forums makes the comment and advice itself doesnt it. yellowhunter13

1:16pm Tue 21 Jan 14

shy talk says...

Worth reding


WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL ...
media.weymouth.gov.u
k/docstore/demdocs/.
../MAN-M-20131203.pd
f‎
3 Dec 2013 - WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL ... MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 3 DECEMBER 2013 ... 318 The Chair advised of two additional items in January 2014, to be ... effect until the 2015-16 budget.
Worth reding [PDF] WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL ... media.weymouth.gov.u k/docstore/demdocs/. ../MAN-M-20131203.pd f‎ 3 Dec 2013 - WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL ... MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 3 DECEMBER 2013 ... 318 The Chair advised of two additional items in January 2014, to be ... effect until the 2015-16 budget. shy talk

1:26pm Tue 21 Jan 14

shy talk says...

Ignore my last post.
Ignore my last post. shy talk

1:28pm Tue 21 Jan 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
notweymouth wrote:
This all sounds like a total shambles reminiscent of "The Vicar of Dibley". PTC should be torn up and we should start again.

For a start, as noone at the council seems capable of spending 5 minutes ftp'ing a pdf file to the web server, how about creating a Facebook Group called Portland Town Council and posting the minutes there. 5 Minute Job.
I even gave him a link to a site he could have uploaded it to in about 20 seconds. He has still refused to answer who administers the town council website, why it is 6 months negligent of publishing its minutes and is anyone paid money for its administration?
Talking about refusing to answer, DO YOU LIVE ON PORTLAND?
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notweymouth[/bold] wrote: This all sounds like a total shambles reminiscent of "The Vicar of Dibley". PTC should be torn up and we should start again. For a start, as noone at the council seems capable of spending 5 minutes ftp'ing a pdf file to the web server, how about creating a Facebook Group called Portland Town Council and posting the minutes there. 5 Minute Job.[/p][/quote]I even gave him a link to a site he could have uploaded it to in about 20 seconds. He has still refused to answer who administers the town council website, why it is 6 months negligent of publishing its minutes and is anyone paid money for its administration?[/p][/quote]Talking about refusing to answer, DO YOU LIVE ON PORTLAND? woodsedge

1:43pm Tue 21 Jan 14

shy talk says...

PORTLAND TOWN COUNCIL

TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
HELD ON WEDNESDAY 16TH JANUARY 2013


PRESENT: Councillors Mrs S. Bradley (Chair), L. Ames, Mrs R. Barton,
Mrs J. Collinge, R. Denton-White, Miss A. Munro, T. Munro, Mrs E. Munro-Price,
I. Munro-Price, R. Nowak and R. Wild.

IN ATTENDANCE: Ian Looker (Town Clerk), Rev. T. Gomm (Mayor’s Chaplain) and
Sgt. Ged Want (Dorset Police), together with two members of the public.

2280 – PRAYERS
The Mayor’s Chaplain led the meeting in prayer.
2281 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Cllr. Mrs S. West.

2282 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Cllr. Ian Munro-Price declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 10 – Council Budget and Precept, 2013/14. The Clerk acknowledged this was true for all Councillors by virtue of the new Government regulations and said dispensations had been given to all members present to debate and vote on the item.

2283 – OPEN FORUM
a) Police Question Time
Sgt. Ged Want briefly introduced himself to the Council and provided some statistics on local crime and anti-social behaviour. As far as the Island was concerned both had reduced in incidence compared with the previous year.

The Police Station lease at Victoria Buildings had come to an end. Consequently it had moved to the Marine Section premises at Osprey Quay, where regrettably there was no public access. A more permanent site was being investigated and it was quite likely that the station would move to share the Fire Station building.

Cllr. Denton-White asked about a New Year incident in Fortuneswell involving about fifty misbehaving youngsters. He conceded that the Police had responded quickly, but felt that they had taken little action to deal with the problem. Sgt. Want replied that the Police were trying to set up a Pub Watch scheme locally and make regular checks at pubs and off-licences. He stressed that it was necessary for the public to call the Police as soon as troublesome incidents occurred.

Cllr. Tim Munro thought the situation in Underhill was being misrepresented and pointed out that the Pub Watch was not compulsory, with licensees able to opt out if they chose. He asked why there had been no PACT meetings in the last two years and was sceptical of the usefulness of street corner meetings. Sgt. Want said PACT was no longer a priority, partly because of falling attendances. The emphasis had shifted to Safe Neighbourhood policing with the priorities in order being (1) the victims, (2) the offenders and (3) the community.
Cllr. Collinge queried the effect of less street lighting at night on crime levels. Sgt. Want referred to a recent spate of car damage and said this was not related to lighting levels.

Cllr. Barton raised the subject of parking on grass verges on the Island. Cllr. Tim Munro said the Borough Council had bye-laws in place regarding this. What emerged in discussion as an unresolved issue was whether responsibility lay with the Borough or the Police to enforce the bye-laws. Sgt. Want said he would need sight of those regulations and also to consult his traffic department colleagues.

Finally Sgt. Want expressed the hope that he would be able to attend Council meetings every two months.

b) Public Half-Hour
There were no questions.

2284 – MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 12TH DECEMBER 2012
Three omissions were mentioned. Those present should have included Cllr. Barton. Minutes 2268 and 2274 should have identified “Cllr. Munro” as Cllr. Tim Munro. With these amendments the minutes were formally agreed and signed as a correct record.

2285 – MINUTE UPDATE AND MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
Minute 2266 – Town Mayor’s Announcements
Cllr. Tim Munro asked for clarification on what were current arrangements for the use of mobile phones in Council meeting. The Clerk said the minute was intended only as an account of events at the December meeting. Both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor commented on practice in other councils, but did not make any precise stipulations.

2286 – TOWN MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Cllr. Bradley said her Mayoral chain had lost its pendant and had taken it to a jeweller with a view to repairing it. She also reported that twelve applications had been received for the vacancy post of Assistant Clerk.

Cllr. Tim Munro questioned action being taken to fill the vacancy when the Council had not discussed if this should be done at all. Different views were expressed on whether there had been opportunity to discuss the topic at the last meeting. After discussion it was proposed by Cllr. Barton and RESOLVED – that the filling of the Assistant Clerk post be discussed under Agenda Item 10.

2287 – WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE MAYOR
There were none.

2288 – FINANCIAL MATTERS
a) Payments for Authorisation
Cllr. Tim Munro queried payment for staff overtime in connection with the Neighbourhood Plan when the Plan had not yet received approval from the Borough


to proceed. The Clerk stated that Council had already agreed in principle to authorise such payments (October).

RESOLVED – that the schedule of invoices (cheque refs. 2822 – 2832) in the sum of £2,103.19 including VAT be authorised for payment.

b) 2012/13 Financial Report to 31st December 2012
RESOLVED – that the report be accepted.

(Cllr. Tim Munro left the meeting at 8.10 pm).

2289 – COUNCIL BUDGET AND PRECEPT, 2013/14
The Clerk said he had divided his report on the item into three parts. The first part concerned the effect of localisation of Council Tax benefit, where he had attempted to explain the difference in precept and Band D charge between the old and new financial regimes. Cllr. Elspie Munro-Price thought the systems could only have been adequately explained by means of a proper training session for members.

The Clerk then spoke to the second part of his report, “The Bigger Picture,” where he had recommended that the Council agree an approximate level of precept for 2013/14 before looking at the size of individual budgets. This had been one of the key points gleaned at the DAPTC training course on budgets and precepts. Members seemed to prefer settling first on assessing the new individual budget figures.

In the course of the ensuing discussion Cllr. Wild proposed making additions to the existing salaries budget, £20,000 for a lengthsman and £2,800 to cover an increase in staff hours.

(Cllrs. Amanda Munro, Ian Munro-Price and Elspie Munro-Price left the meeting at 8.35 pm.)

Cllr. Nowak proposed an amendment to Cllr. Wild’s motion, that the £20,000 for a lengthsman be assigned to the projects budget rather than salaries. Cllr. Wild accepted the amendment.

RESOLVED – that £20,000 be added to the 2012/13 projects budget figure for 2013/14 and likewise £2,800 to the salaries figure. Members requested it be noted this resolution was carried unanimously.

Members continued to assess the individual budgets. In the course of the discussion it was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the unstarred budgets provisionally be increased by 2.7%. Looking in particular at the salaries budget it was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Council proceed with the appointment of an Assistant Clerk.




The following budgets were agreed:-

Expenditure Salarie
s 25,650
Advertising 411
Audit 788
Civic Expenditure 1,541
Computer Equipment 0
IT Support 257
Contingency 3,500
Elections 0
Fair Expenses 0

Furniture and Equipment 370
Honorarium 100
Insurance 1,656
Mayoral Allowance 700
Postage 600

Publications 0
Stationery 600
Subscriptions 1,386
Telephone 822
Training/Conferen
ces 300

Travelling and Subsistence 100

Gifts and Donations 205
Grants 2,000
Projects 20,800
Town Crier 50
Web Site 500

Total 62,386


Income Precept 4
7,910
Discount Grant 4,726
Fairs (sic) 4,000
Interest 750
Other 0

Total 57,386

Planned Surplus/Deficit (-) -5,000


The annual charge to a Band D Council Taxpayer was calculated as £14.74.

It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the budget for 2013/14 as specified above be accepted with a precept of £47,910.
For: Cllrs. Ames, Barton, Bradley, Collinge, Denton-White, Nowak and Wild.
Against: None

It was further agreed that Cllr. Barton should draft a press release concerning the Council’s decisions, to be submitted to the Clerk for onward transmission.

2290 – WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL: 2013/2014 BUDGET CONSULTATION
It was proposed by Cllr. Ames and RESOLVED – that Councillors should submit individual responses to the consultation if they wished.

2291 – LOCALISATION OF COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT
It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Council approves NALC’s response to the Government’s changes in Council Tax support and writes to Mr Eric Pickles, local government minister and Mr Richard Drax MP along the lines suggested by NALC.

2292 – FORTUNESWELL POST OFFICE, MOVE TO NEW PREMISES
Members considered the e-mails of Andrew Willshear, Consumer Focus and Simon Thompson, Dorset Community Action. It was proposed by Cllr. Barton and RESOLVED – that the Council respond to the Post Office in its consultation using the DCA’S submission as a model and mentioning the suggestion that the trained staff currently employed at Fortuneswell Post Office be re-employed to provide the necessary expertise.

2293 – STANDING ORDERS WORKING GROUP
It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor by office be added to the current Working Group members of Cllrs. Denton-White, Tim Munro and Ian Munro-Price.

2294 – MARINE & ENVIRONMENT PARTNERSHIP
It was proposed by Cllr. Bradley and RESOLVED – that meetings of the Partnership become quarterly from May.

2295 – FINANCE & PROJECTS COMMITTEE
It was proposed by Cllr. Bradley and RESOLVED – that the Committee not be reinstated.

2296 – ARCHIVE STORAGE
It was proposed by Cllr. Ames and RESOLVED – that the Council use the service offered free of charge by Portland History Study Centre to store its archives.

The Clerk said he would ensure that any confidential or otherwise sensitive records continue to be held at the Council Offices.

2297 – REPORTS FROM BOROUGH AND COUNTY COUNCILLORS
Cllr. Ames reported that the County Council is taking over responsibility for public health from the National Health Service.

2298 – REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE BODIES AND VOLUNTARY POSTS
Nothing further was reported.

2299 – FORWARD PLAN
It was agreed that at the Council’s next meeting there be agenda items to hear a verbal annual report by the Town Crier and discuss the appointment of a lengthsman.

2300 – DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next scheduled meeting of the Town Council is due to take place on Wednesday, 20th February 2013, starting at 7.00 pm.


The meeting ended at 10.20 pm.









Signed…………
………………
…… Dated……………
…………..
(Chair)
PORTLAND TOWN COUNCIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 16TH JANUARY 2013 PRESENT: Councillors Mrs S. Bradley (Chair), L. Ames, Mrs R. Barton, Mrs J. Collinge, R. Denton-White, Miss A. Munro, T. Munro, Mrs E. Munro-Price, I. Munro-Price, R. Nowak and R. Wild. IN ATTENDANCE: Ian Looker (Town Clerk), Rev. T. Gomm (Mayor’s Chaplain) and Sgt. Ged Want (Dorset Police), together with two members of the public. 2280 – PRAYERS The Mayor’s Chaplain led the meeting in prayer. 2281 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies were received from Cllr. Mrs S. West. 2282 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Cllr. Ian Munro-Price declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 10 – Council Budget and Precept, 2013/14. The Clerk acknowledged this was true for all Councillors by virtue of the new Government regulations and said dispensations had been given to all members present to debate and vote on the item. 2283 – OPEN FORUM a) Police Question Time Sgt. Ged Want briefly introduced himself to the Council and provided some statistics on local crime and anti-social behaviour. As far as the Island was concerned both had reduced in incidence compared with the previous year. The Police Station lease at Victoria Buildings had come to an end. Consequently it had moved to the Marine Section premises at Osprey Quay, where regrettably there was no public access. A more permanent site was being investigated and it was quite likely that the station would move to share the Fire Station building. Cllr. Denton-White asked about a New Year incident in Fortuneswell involving about fifty misbehaving youngsters. He conceded that the Police had responded quickly, but felt that they had taken little action to deal with the problem. Sgt. Want replied that the Police were trying to set up a Pub Watch scheme locally and make regular checks at pubs and off-licences. He stressed that it was necessary for the public to call the Police as soon as troublesome incidents occurred. Cllr. Tim Munro thought the situation in Underhill was being misrepresented and pointed out that the Pub Watch was not compulsory, with licensees able to opt out if they chose. He asked why there had been no PACT meetings in the last two years and was sceptical of the usefulness of street corner meetings. Sgt. Want said PACT was no longer a priority, partly because of falling attendances. The emphasis had shifted to Safe Neighbourhood policing with the priorities in order being (1) the victims, (2) the offenders and (3) the community. Cllr. Collinge queried the effect of less street lighting at night on crime levels. Sgt. Want referred to a recent spate of car damage and said this was not related to lighting levels. Cllr. Barton raised the subject of parking on grass verges on the Island. Cllr. Tim Munro said the Borough Council had bye-laws in place regarding this. What emerged in discussion as an unresolved issue was whether responsibility lay with the Borough or the Police to enforce the bye-laws. Sgt. Want said he would need sight of those regulations and also to consult his traffic department colleagues. Finally Sgt. Want expressed the hope that he would be able to attend Council meetings every two months. b) Public Half-Hour There were no questions. 2284 – MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 12TH DECEMBER 2012 Three omissions were mentioned. Those present should have included Cllr. Barton. Minutes 2268 and 2274 should have identified “Cllr. Munro” as Cllr. Tim Munro. With these amendments the minutes were formally agreed and signed as a correct record. 2285 – MINUTE UPDATE AND MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Minute 2266 – Town Mayor’s Announcements Cllr. Tim Munro asked for clarification on what were current arrangements for the use of mobile phones in Council meeting. The Clerk said the minute was intended only as an account of events at the December meeting. Both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor commented on practice in other councils, but did not make any precise stipulations. 2286 – TOWN MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Cllr. Bradley said her Mayoral chain had lost its pendant and had taken it to a jeweller with a view to repairing it. She also reported that twelve applications had been received for the vacancy post of Assistant Clerk. Cllr. Tim Munro questioned action being taken to fill the vacancy when the Council had not discussed if this should be done at all. Different views were expressed on whether there had been opportunity to discuss the topic at the last meeting. After discussion it was proposed by Cllr. Barton and RESOLVED – that the filling of the Assistant Clerk post be discussed under Agenda Item 10. 2287 – WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE MAYOR There were none. 2288 – FINANCIAL MATTERS a) Payments for Authorisation Cllr. Tim Munro queried payment for staff overtime in connection with the Neighbourhood Plan when the Plan had not yet received approval from the Borough to proceed. The Clerk stated that Council had already agreed in principle to authorise such payments (October). RESOLVED – that the schedule of invoices (cheque refs. 2822 – 2832) in the sum of £2,103.19 including VAT be authorised for payment. b) 2012/13 Financial Report to 31st December 2012 RESOLVED – that the report be accepted. (Cllr. Tim Munro left the meeting at 8.10 pm). 2289 – COUNCIL BUDGET AND PRECEPT, 2013/14 The Clerk said he had divided his report on the item into three parts. The first part concerned the effect of localisation of Council Tax benefit, where he had attempted to explain the difference in precept and Band D charge between the old and new financial regimes. Cllr. Elspie Munro-Price thought the systems could only have been adequately explained by means of a proper training session for members. The Clerk then spoke to the second part of his report, “The Bigger Picture,” where he had recommended that the Council agree an approximate level of precept for 2013/14 before looking at the size of individual budgets. This had been one of the key points gleaned at the DAPTC training course on budgets and precepts. Members seemed to prefer settling first on assessing the new individual budget figures. In the course of the ensuing discussion Cllr. Wild proposed making additions to the existing salaries budget, £20,000 for a lengthsman and £2,800 to cover an increase in staff hours. (Cllrs. Amanda Munro, Ian Munro-Price and Elspie Munro-Price left the meeting at 8.35 pm.) Cllr. Nowak proposed an amendment to Cllr. Wild’s motion, that the £20,000 for a lengthsman be assigned to the projects budget rather than salaries. Cllr. Wild accepted the amendment. RESOLVED – that £20,000 be added to the 2012/13 projects budget figure for 2013/14 and likewise £2,800 to the salaries figure. Members requested it be noted this resolution was carried unanimously. Members continued to assess the individual budgets. In the course of the discussion it was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the unstarred budgets provisionally be increased by 2.7%. Looking in particular at the salaries budget it was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Council proceed with the appointment of an Assistant Clerk. The following budgets were agreed:- Expenditure Salarie s 25,650 Advertising 411 Audit 788 Civic Expenditure 1,541 Computer Equipment 0 IT Support 257 Contingency 3,500 Elections 0 Fair Expenses 0 Furniture and Equipment 370 Honorarium 100 Insurance 1,656 Mayoral Allowance 700 Postage 600 Publications 0 Stationery 600 Subscriptions 1,386 Telephone 822 Training/Conferen ces 300 Travelling and Subsistence 100 Gifts and Donations 205 Grants 2,000 Projects 20,800 Town Crier 50 Web Site 500 Total 62,386 Income Precept 4 7,910 Discount Grant 4,726 Fairs (sic) 4,000 Interest 750 Other 0 Total 57,386 Planned Surplus/Deficit (-) -5,000 The annual charge to a Band D Council Taxpayer was calculated as £14.74. It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the budget for 2013/14 as specified above be accepted with a precept of £47,910. For: Cllrs. Ames, Barton, Bradley, Collinge, Denton-White, Nowak and Wild. Against: None It was further agreed that Cllr. Barton should draft a press release concerning the Council’s decisions, to be submitted to the Clerk for onward transmission. 2290 – WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL: 2013/2014 BUDGET CONSULTATION It was proposed by Cllr. Ames and RESOLVED – that Councillors should submit individual responses to the consultation if they wished. 2291 – LOCALISATION OF COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Council approves NALC’s response to the Government’s changes in Council Tax support and writes to Mr Eric Pickles, local government minister and Mr Richard Drax MP along the lines suggested by NALC. 2292 – FORTUNESWELL POST OFFICE, MOVE TO NEW PREMISES Members considered the e-mails of Andrew Willshear, Consumer Focus and Simon Thompson, Dorset Community Action. It was proposed by Cllr. Barton and RESOLVED – that the Council respond to the Post Office in its consultation using the DCA’S submission as a model and mentioning the suggestion that the trained staff currently employed at Fortuneswell Post Office be re-employed to provide the necessary expertise. 2293 – STANDING ORDERS WORKING GROUP It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor by office be added to the current Working Group members of Cllrs. Denton-White, Tim Munro and Ian Munro-Price. 2294 – MARINE & ENVIRONMENT PARTNERSHIP It was proposed by Cllr. Bradley and RESOLVED – that meetings of the Partnership become quarterly from May. 2295 – FINANCE & PROJECTS COMMITTEE It was proposed by Cllr. Bradley and RESOLVED – that the Committee not be reinstated. 2296 – ARCHIVE STORAGE It was proposed by Cllr. Ames and RESOLVED – that the Council use the service offered free of charge by Portland History Study Centre to store its archives. The Clerk said he would ensure that any confidential or otherwise sensitive records continue to be held at the Council Offices. 2297 – REPORTS FROM BOROUGH AND COUNTY COUNCILLORS Cllr. Ames reported that the County Council is taking over responsibility for public health from the National Health Service. 2298 – REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE BODIES AND VOLUNTARY POSTS Nothing further was reported. 2299 – FORWARD PLAN It was agreed that at the Council’s next meeting there be agenda items to hear a verbal annual report by the Town Crier and discuss the appointment of a lengthsman. 2300 – DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next scheduled meeting of the Town Council is due to take place on Wednesday, 20th February 2013, starting at 7.00 pm. The meeting ended at 10.20 pm. Signed………… ……………… …… Dated…………… ………….. (Chair) shy talk

1:52pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Foursite says...

chisweller wrote:
Cllr Les Ames Elected Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opted Cllr Rob Hughes Elected Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted Cllr Amanda Munro Elected Cllr Tim Munro Elected Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted Cllr Rod Wild Elected Who'e the other bloke on the council who's bought the church then? I hope Sandra Reynolds didn't vote for this. I know it's a along time ago but Les Ames stood for the Ratepayers Alliance in the 1970's, he obviously has got the bug for spending other people's money from sitting on the main councils. How much do they pick up in salary and allowances from DCC & WPBC. Seems to me like they want to import the gravy train.
Foursite says
Sandra did not vote,She is a Portland girl standing up for the Portland people,she was as disgusted as the rest of us.The co opted members are the ones that stand up for the Portland people apart from ,Denton White who fell for the line that we Portland folk have as many services as Dorchester, Bridport and Blandford.and should pay accordingly The others voted in" principle" not for the amount set.
chisweller wrote: Cllr Les Ames Elected Cllr Rachel Barton Co-opted Cllr Sylvia Bradley Elected Cllr Richard Denton-White Co-opted Cllr Rob Hughes Elected Cllr Andy Matthews Co-opted Cllr Amanda Munro Elected Cllr Tim Munro Elected Cllr Elspie Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ian Munro-Price Elected Cllr Ray Nowak Co-opted Cllr Sandra Reynolds Co-opted Cllr Rod Wild Elected Who'e the other bloke on the council who's bought the church then? I hope Sandra Reynolds didn't vote for this. I know it's a along time ago but Les Ames stood for the Ratepayers Alliance in the 1970's, he obviously has got the bug for spending other people's money from sitting on the main councils. How much do they pick up in salary and allowances from DCC & WPBC. Seems to me like they want to import the gravy train. Foursite says Sandra did not vote,She is a Portland girl standing up for the Portland people,she was as disgusted as the rest of us.The co opted members are the ones that stand up for the Portland people apart from ,Denton White who fell for the line that we Portland folk have as many services as Dorchester, Bridport and Blandford.and should pay accordingly The others voted in" principle" not for the amount set. Foursite

2:20pm Tue 21 Jan 14

yellowhunter13 says...

I do not really care what happened at that meeting or at what precise time who went off early who was sick who went for a slash etc etc. And as for the minutes or schedules etc it is easy when your a councillor playing with other peoples money and the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Completely unacceptable and an insult time to move on and get rid of the lot.
I do not really care what happened at that meeting or at what precise time who went off early who was sick who went for a slash etc etc. And as for the minutes or schedules etc it is easy when your a councillor playing with other peoples money and the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Completely unacceptable and an insult time to move on and get rid of the lot. yellowhunter13

2:54pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Bob Goulding says...

shy talk wrote:
PORTLAND TOWN COUNCIL

TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
HELD ON WEDNESDAY 16TH JANUARY 2013


PRESENT: Councillors Mrs S. Bradley (Chair), L. Ames, Mrs R. Barton,
Mrs J. Collinge, R. Denton-White, Miss A. Munro, T. Munro, Mrs E. Munro-Price,
I. Munro-Price, R. Nowak and R. Wild.

IN ATTENDANCE: Ian Looker (Town Clerk), Rev. T. Gomm (Mayor’s Chaplain) and
Sgt. Ged Want (Dorset Police), together with two members of the public.

2280 – PRAYERS
The Mayor’s Chaplain led the meeting in prayer.
2281 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Cllr. Mrs S. West.

2282 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Cllr. Ian Munro-Price declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 10 – Council Budget and Precept, 2013/14. The Clerk acknowledged this was true for all Councillors by virtue of the new Government regulations and said dispensations had been given to all members present to debate and vote on the item.

2283 – OPEN FORUM
a) Police Question Time
Sgt. Ged Want briefly introduced himself to the Council and provided some statistics on local crime and anti-social behaviour. As far as the Island was concerned both had reduced in incidence compared with the previous year.

The Police Station lease at Victoria Buildings had come to an end. Consequently it had moved to the Marine Section premises at Osprey Quay, where regrettably there was no public access. A more permanent site was being investigated and it was quite likely that the station would move to share the Fire Station building.

Cllr. Denton-White asked about a New Year incident in Fortuneswell involving about fifty misbehaving youngsters. He conceded that the Police had responded quickly, but felt that they had taken little action to deal with the problem. Sgt. Want replied that the Police were trying to set up a Pub Watch scheme locally and make regular checks at pubs and off-licences. He stressed that it was necessary for the public to call the Police as soon as troublesome incidents occurred.

Cllr. Tim Munro thought the situation in Underhill was being misrepresented and pointed out that the Pub Watch was not compulsory, with licensees able to opt out if they chose. He asked why there had been no PACT meetings in the last two years and was sceptical of the usefulness of street corner meetings. Sgt. Want said PACT was no longer a priority, partly because of falling attendances. The emphasis had shifted to Safe Neighbourhood policing with the priorities in order being (1) the victims, (2) the offenders and (3) the community.
Cllr. Collinge queried the effect of less street lighting at night on crime levels. Sgt. Want referred to a recent spate of car damage and said this was not related to lighting levels.

Cllr. Barton raised the subject of parking on grass verges on the Island. Cllr. Tim Munro said the Borough Council had bye-laws in place regarding this. What emerged in discussion as an unresolved issue was whether responsibility lay with the Borough or the Police to enforce the bye-laws. Sgt. Want said he would need sight of those regulations and also to consult his traffic department colleagues.

Finally Sgt. Want expressed the hope that he would be able to attend Council meetings every two months.

b) Public Half-Hour
There were no questions.

2284 – MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 12TH DECEMBER 2012
Three omissions were mentioned. Those present should have included Cllr. Barton. Minutes 2268 and 2274 should have identified “Cllr. Munro” as Cllr. Tim Munro. With these amendments the minutes were formally agreed and signed as a correct record.

2285 – MINUTE UPDATE AND MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
Minute 2266 – Town Mayor’s Announcements
Cllr. Tim Munro asked for clarification on what were current arrangements for the use of mobile phones in Council meeting. The Clerk said the minute was intended only as an account of events at the December meeting. Both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor commented on practice in other councils, but did not make any precise stipulations.

2286 – TOWN MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Cllr. Bradley said her Mayoral chain had lost its pendant and had taken it to a jeweller with a view to repairing it. She also reported that twelve applications had been received for the vacancy post of Assistant Clerk.

Cllr. Tim Munro questioned action being taken to fill the vacancy when the Council had not discussed if this should be done at all. Different views were expressed on whether there had been opportunity to discuss the topic at the last meeting. After discussion it was proposed by Cllr. Barton and RESOLVED – that the filling of the Assistant Clerk post be discussed under Agenda Item 10.

2287 – WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE MAYOR
There were none.

2288 – FINANCIAL MATTERS
a) Payments for Authorisation
Cllr. Tim Munro queried payment for staff overtime in connection with the Neighbourhood Plan when the Plan had not yet received approval from the Borough


to proceed. The Clerk stated that Council had already agreed in principle to authorise such payments (October).

RESOLVED – that the schedule of invoices (cheque refs. 2822 – 2832) in the sum of £2,103.19 including VAT be authorised for payment.

b) 2012/13 Financial Report to 31st December 2012
RESOLVED – that the report be accepted.

(Cllr. Tim Munro left the meeting at 8.10 pm).

2289 – COUNCIL BUDGET AND PRECEPT, 2013/14
The Clerk said he had divided his report on the item into three parts. The first part concerned the effect of localisation of Council Tax benefit, where he had attempted to explain the difference in precept and Band D charge between the old and new financial regimes. Cllr. Elspie Munro-Price thought the systems could only have been adequately explained by means of a proper training session for members.

The Clerk then spoke to the second part of his report, “The Bigger Picture,” where he had recommended that the Council agree an approximate level of precept for 2013/14 before looking at the size of individual budgets. This had been one of the key points gleaned at the DAPTC training course on budgets and precepts. Members seemed to prefer settling first on assessing the new individual budget figures.

In the course of the ensuing discussion Cllr. Wild proposed making additions to the existing salaries budget, £20,000 for a lengthsman and £2,800 to cover an increase in staff hours.

(Cllrs. Amanda Munro, Ian Munro-Price and Elspie Munro-Price left the meeting at 8.35 pm.)

Cllr. Nowak proposed an amendment to Cllr. Wild’s motion, that the £20,000 for a lengthsman be assigned to the projects budget rather than salaries. Cllr. Wild accepted the amendment.

RESOLVED – that £20,000 be added to the 2012/13 projects budget figure for 2013/14 and likewise £2,800 to the salaries figure. Members requested it be noted this resolution was carried unanimously.

Members continued to assess the individual budgets. In the course of the discussion it was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the unstarred budgets provisionally be increased by 2.7%. Looking in particular at the salaries budget it was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Council proceed with the appointment of an Assistant Clerk.




The following budgets were agreed:-

Expenditure Salarie

s 25,650
Advertising 411
Audit 788
Civic Expenditure 1,541
Computer Equipment 0
IT Support 257
Contingency 3,500
Elections 0
Fair Expenses 0

Furniture and Equipment 370
Honorarium 100
Insurance 1,656
Mayoral Allowance 700
Postage 600

Publications 0
Stationery 600
Subscriptions 1,386
Telephone 822
Training/Conferen

ces 300

Travelling and Subsistence 100

Gifts and Donations 205
Grants 2,000
Projects 20,800
Town Crier 50
Web Site 500

Total 62,386


Income Precept 4

7,910
Discount Grant 4,726
Fairs (sic) 4,000
Interest 750
Other 0

Total 57,386

Planned Surplus/Deficit (-) -5,000


The annual charge to a Band D Council Taxpayer was calculated as £14.74.

It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the budget for 2013/14 as specified above be accepted with a precept of £47,910.
For: Cllrs. Ames, Barton, Bradley, Collinge, Denton-White, Nowak and Wild.
Against: None

It was further agreed that Cllr. Barton should draft a press release concerning the Council’s decisions, to be submitted to the Clerk for onward transmission.

2290 – WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL: 2013/2014 BUDGET CONSULTATION
It was proposed by Cllr. Ames and RESOLVED – that Councillors should submit individual responses to the consultation if they wished.

2291 – LOCALISATION OF COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT
It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Council approves NALC’s response to the Government’s changes in Council Tax support and writes to Mr Eric Pickles, local government minister and Mr Richard Drax MP along the lines suggested by NALC.

2292 – FORTUNESWELL POST OFFICE, MOVE TO NEW PREMISES
Members considered the e-mails of Andrew Willshear, Consumer Focus and Simon Thompson, Dorset Community Action. It was proposed by Cllr. Barton and RESOLVED – that the Council respond to the Post Office in its consultation using the DCA’S submission as a model and mentioning the suggestion that the trained staff currently employed at Fortuneswell Post Office be re-employed to provide the necessary expertise.

2293 – STANDING ORDERS WORKING GROUP
It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor by office be added to the current Working Group members of Cllrs. Denton-White, Tim Munro and Ian Munro-Price.

2294 – MARINE & ENVIRONMENT PARTNERSHIP
It was proposed by Cllr. Bradley and RESOLVED – that meetings of the Partnership become quarterly from May.

2295 – FINANCE & PROJECTS COMMITTEE
It was proposed by Cllr. Bradley and RESOLVED – that the Committee not be reinstated.

2296 – ARCHIVE STORAGE
It was proposed by Cllr. Ames and RESOLVED – that the Council use the service offered free of charge by Portland History Study Centre to store its archives.

The Clerk said he would ensure that any confidential or otherwise sensitive records continue to be held at the Council Offices.

2297 – REPORTS FROM BOROUGH AND COUNTY COUNCILLORS
Cllr. Ames reported that the County Council is taking over responsibility for public health from the National Health Service.

2298 – REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE BODIES AND VOLUNTARY POSTS
Nothing further was reported.

2299 – FORWARD PLAN
It was agreed that at the Council’s next meeting there be agenda items to hear a verbal annual report by the Town Crier and discuss the appointment of a lengthsman.

2300 – DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next scheduled meeting of the Town Council is due to take place on Wednesday, 20th February 2013, starting at 7.00 pm.


The meeting ended at 10.20 pm.









Signed…………

�……………

��…… Dated……………

…………..
(Chair)
shy talk wrote:

PORTLAND TOWN COUNCIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 16TH JANUARY 2013 PRESENT: Councillors Mrs S. Bradley (Chair), L. Ames, Mrs R. Barton, Mrs J. Collinge, R. Denton-White, Miss A. Munro, T. Munro, Mrs E. Munro-Price, I. Munro-Price, R. Nowak and R. Wild. IN ATTENDANCE: Ian Looker (Town Clerk), Rev. T. Gomm (Mayor’s Chaplain) and Sgt. Ged Want (Dorset Police), together with two members of the public. 2280 – PRAYERS The Mayor’s Chaplain led the meeting in prayer. 2281 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies were received from Cllr. Mrs S. West. 2282 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Cllr. Ian Munro-Price declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 10 – Council Budget and Precept, 2013/14. The Clerk acknowledged this was true for all Councillors by virtue of the new Government regulations and said dispensations had been given to all ..... etc

DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next scheduled meeting of the Town Council is due to take place on Wednesday, 20th February 2013, starting at 7.00 pm. The meeting ended at 10.20 pm. Signed……

What was the point that you were trying to make here Shy Talk?
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: PORTLAND TOWN COUNCIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 16TH JANUARY 2013 PRESENT: Councillors Mrs S. Bradley (Chair), L. Ames, Mrs R. Barton, Mrs J. Collinge, R. Denton-White, Miss A. Munro, T. Munro, Mrs E. Munro-Price, I. Munro-Price, R. Nowak and R. Wild. IN ATTENDANCE: Ian Looker (Town Clerk), Rev. T. Gomm (Mayor’s Chaplain) and Sgt. Ged Want (Dorset Police), together with two members of the public. 2280 – PRAYERS The Mayor’s Chaplain led the meeting in prayer. 2281 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies were received from Cllr. Mrs S. West. 2282 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Cllr. Ian Munro-Price declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 10 – Council Budget and Precept, 2013/14. The Clerk acknowledged this was true for all Councillors by virtue of the new Government regulations and said dispensations had been given to all members present to debate and vote on the item. 2283 – OPEN FORUM a) Police Question Time Sgt. Ged Want briefly introduced himself to the Council and provided some statistics on local crime and anti-social behaviour. As far as the Island was concerned both had reduced in incidence compared with the previous year. The Police Station lease at Victoria Buildings had come to an end. Consequently it had moved to the Marine Section premises at Osprey Quay, where regrettably there was no public access. A more permanent site was being investigated and it was quite likely that the station would move to share the Fire Station building. Cllr. Denton-White asked about a New Year incident in Fortuneswell involving about fifty misbehaving youngsters. He conceded that the Police had responded quickly, but felt that they had taken little action to deal with the problem. Sgt. Want replied that the Police were trying to set up a Pub Watch scheme locally and make regular checks at pubs and off-licences. He stressed that it was necessary for the public to call the Police as soon as troublesome incidents occurred. Cllr. Tim Munro thought the situation in Underhill was being misrepresented and pointed out that the Pub Watch was not compulsory, with licensees able to opt out if they chose. He asked why there had been no PACT meetings in the last two years and was sceptical of the usefulness of street corner meetings. Sgt. Want said PACT was no longer a priority, partly because of falling attendances. The emphasis had shifted to Safe Neighbourhood policing with the priorities in order being (1) the victims, (2) the offenders and (3) the community. Cllr. Collinge queried the effect of less street lighting at night on crime levels. Sgt. Want referred to a recent spate of car damage and said this was not related to lighting levels. Cllr. Barton raised the subject of parking on grass verges on the Island. Cllr. Tim Munro said the Borough Council had bye-laws in place regarding this. What emerged in discussion as an unresolved issue was whether responsibility lay with the Borough or the Police to enforce the bye-laws. Sgt. Want said he would need sight of those regulations and also to consult his traffic department colleagues. Finally Sgt. Want expressed the hope that he would be able to attend Council meetings every two months. b) Public Half-Hour There were no questions. 2284 – MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 12TH DECEMBER 2012 Three omissions were mentioned. Those present should have included Cllr. Barton. Minutes 2268 and 2274 should have identified “Cllr. Munro” as Cllr. Tim Munro. With these amendments the minutes were formally agreed and signed as a correct record. 2285 – MINUTE UPDATE AND MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Minute 2266 – Town Mayor’s Announcements Cllr. Tim Munro asked for clarification on what were current arrangements for the use of mobile phones in Council meeting. The Clerk said the minute was intended only as an account of events at the December meeting. Both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor commented on practice in other councils, but did not make any precise stipulations. 2286 – TOWN MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Cllr. Bradley said her Mayoral chain had lost its pendant and had taken it to a jeweller with a view to repairing it. She also reported that twelve applications had been received for the vacancy post of Assistant Clerk. Cllr. Tim Munro questioned action being taken to fill the vacancy when the Council had not discussed if this should be done at all. Different views were expressed on whether there had been opportunity to discuss the topic at the last meeting. After discussion it was proposed by Cllr. Barton and RESOLVED – that the filling of the Assistant Clerk post be discussed under Agenda Item 10. 2287 – WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE MAYOR There were none. 2288 – FINANCIAL MATTERS a) Payments for Authorisation Cllr. Tim Munro queried payment for staff overtime in connection with the Neighbourhood Plan when the Plan had not yet received approval from the Borough to proceed. The Clerk stated that Council had already agreed in principle to authorise such payments (October). RESOLVED – that the schedule of invoices (cheque refs. 2822 – 2832) in the sum of £2,103.19 including VAT be authorised for payment. b) 2012/13 Financial Report to 31st December 2012 RESOLVED – that the report be accepted. (Cllr. Tim Munro left the meeting at 8.10 pm). 2289 – COUNCIL BUDGET AND PRECEPT, 2013/14 The Clerk said he had divided his report on the item into three parts. The first part concerned the effect of localisation of Council Tax benefit, where he had attempted to explain the difference in precept and Band D charge between the old and new financial regimes. Cllr. Elspie Munro-Price thought the systems could only have been adequately explained by means of a proper training session for members. The Clerk then spoke to the second part of his report, “The Bigger Picture,” where he had recommended that the Council agree an approximate level of precept for 2013/14 before looking at the size of individual budgets. This had been one of the key points gleaned at the DAPTC training course on budgets and precepts. Members seemed to prefer settling first on assessing the new individual budget figures. In the course of the ensuing discussion Cllr. Wild proposed making additions to the existing salaries budget, £20,000 for a lengthsman and £2,800 to cover an increase in staff hours. (Cllrs. Amanda Munro, Ian Munro-Price and Elspie Munro-Price left the meeting at 8.35 pm.) Cllr. Nowak proposed an amendment to Cllr. Wild’s motion, that the £20,000 for a lengthsman be assigned to the projects budget rather than salaries. Cllr. Wild accepted the amendment. RESOLVED – that £20,000 be added to the 2012/13 projects budget figure for 2013/14 and likewise £2,800 to the salaries figure. Members requested it be noted this resolution was carried unanimously. Members continued to assess the individual budgets. In the course of the discussion it was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the unstarred budgets provisionally be increased by 2.7%. Looking in particular at the salaries budget it was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Council proceed with the appointment of an Assistant Clerk. The following budgets were agreed:- Expenditure Salarie s 25,650 Advertising 411 Audit 788 Civic Expenditure 1,541 Computer Equipment 0 IT Support 257 Contingency 3,500 Elections 0 Fair Expenses 0 Furniture and Equipment 370 Honorarium 100 Insurance 1,656 Mayoral Allowance 700 Postage 600 Publications 0 Stationery 600 Subscriptions 1,386 Telephone 822 Training/Conferen ces 300 Travelling and Subsistence 100 Gifts and Donations 205 Grants 2,000 Projects 20,800 Town Crier 50 Web Site 500 Total 62,386 Income Precept 4 7,910 Discount Grant 4,726 Fairs (sic) 4,000 Interest 750 Other 0 Total 57,386 Planned Surplus/Deficit (-) -5,000 The annual charge to a Band D Council Taxpayer was calculated as £14.74. It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the budget for 2013/14 as specified above be accepted with a precept of £47,910. For: Cllrs. Ames, Barton, Bradley, Collinge, Denton-White, Nowak and Wild. Against: None It was further agreed that Cllr. Barton should draft a press release concerning the Council’s decisions, to be submitted to the Clerk for onward transmission. 2290 – WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL: 2013/2014 BUDGET CONSULTATION It was proposed by Cllr. Ames and RESOLVED – that Councillors should submit individual responses to the consultation if they wished. 2291 – LOCALISATION OF COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Council approves NALC’s response to the Government’s changes in Council Tax support and writes to Mr Eric Pickles, local government minister and Mr Richard Drax MP along the lines suggested by NALC. 2292 – FORTUNESWELL POST OFFICE, MOVE TO NEW PREMISES Members considered the e-mails of Andrew Willshear, Consumer Focus and Simon Thompson, Dorset Community Action. It was proposed by Cllr. Barton and RESOLVED – that the Council respond to the Post Office in its consultation using the DCA’S submission as a model and mentioning the suggestion that the trained staff currently employed at Fortuneswell Post Office be re-employed to provide the necessary expertise. 2293 – STANDING ORDERS WORKING GROUP It was proposed by Cllr. Wild and RESOLVED – that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor by office be added to the current Working Group members of Cllrs. Denton-White, Tim Munro and Ian Munro-Price. 2294 – MARINE & ENVIRONMENT PARTNERSHIP It was proposed by Cllr. Bradley and RESOLVED – that meetings of the Partnership become quarterly from May. 2295 – FINANCE & PROJECTS COMMITTEE It was proposed by Cllr. Bradley and RESOLVED – that the Committee not be reinstated. 2296 – ARCHIVE STORAGE It was proposed by Cllr. Ames and RESOLVED – that the Council use the service offered free of charge by Portland History Study Centre to store its archives. The Clerk said he would ensure that any confidential or otherwise sensitive records continue to be held at the Council Offices. 2297 – REPORTS FROM BOROUGH AND COUNTY COUNCILLORS Cllr. Ames reported that the County Council is taking over responsibility for public health from the National Health Service. 2298 – REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE BODIES AND VOLUNTARY POSTS Nothing further was reported. 2299 – FORWARD PLAN It was agreed that at the Council’s next meeting there be agenda items to hear a verbal annual report by the Town Crier and discuss the appointment of a lengthsman. 2300 – DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next scheduled meeting of the Town Council is due to take place on Wednesday, 20th February 2013, starting at 7.00 pm. The meeting ended at 10.20 pm. Signed………… �…………… � ��…… Dated…………… ………….. (Chair)[/p][/quote]shy talk wrote: PORTLAND TOWN COUNCIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 16TH JANUARY 2013 PRESENT: Councillors Mrs S. Bradley (Chair), L. Ames, Mrs R. Barton, Mrs J. Collinge, R. Denton-White, Miss A. Munro, T. Munro, Mrs E. Munro-Price, I. Munro-Price, R. Nowak and R. Wild. IN ATTENDANCE: Ian Looker (Town Clerk), Rev. T. Gomm (Mayor’s Chaplain) and Sgt. Ged Want (Dorset Police), together with two members of the public. 2280 – PRAYERS The Mayor’s Chaplain led the meeting in prayer. 2281 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies were received from Cllr. Mrs S. West. 2282 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Cllr. Ian Munro-Price declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 10 – Council Budget and Precept, 2013/14. The Clerk acknowledged this was true for all Councillors by virtue of the new Government regulations and said dispensations had been given to all ..... etc DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next scheduled meeting of the Town Council is due to take place on Wednesday, 20th February 2013, starting at 7.00 pm. The meeting ended at 10.20 pm. Signed…… What was the point that you were trying to make here Shy Talk? Bob Goulding

3:53pm Tue 21 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

" Web Site £500"

So 500 quid for the website? Who administers it and when will a refund of the monies be made for the 6 months of neglect? Frankly that website could be made in less than an hour for a fiver.
" Web Site £500" So 500 quid for the website? Who administers it and when will a refund of the monies be made for the 6 months of neglect? Frankly that website could be made in less than an hour for a fiver. David_divenghy2

4:06pm Tue 21 Jan 14

notweymouth says...

£50 for a Town Cryer - good to see a moderm communication strategy is in place :-)
£50 for a Town Cryer - good to see a moderm communication strategy is in place :-) notweymouth

6:02pm Tue 21 Jan 14

pattyscubadog says...

If portland precepts are paying 500 for their site, how come it was registered by l.platt of the WPBC and hosted by 1and1 with packages suitable for this site at 2.99 month? Where the rest of the money gone?
If portland precepts are paying 500 for their site, how come it was registered by l.platt of the WPBC and hosted by 1and1 with packages suitable for this site at 2.99 month? Where the rest of the money gone? pattyscubadog

6:34pm Tue 21 Jan 14

cosmick says...

Mr MUNRO DO YOU THINK IT MAY BE AN IDEA TO REVERSE THE DECITION TAKEN ON THE TAX, AND CONSULT THE LOCALS. IF NOT YOU WILL JUST BE A NORMAL MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY SOON!
Mr MUNRO DO YOU THINK IT MAY BE AN IDEA TO REVERSE THE DECITION TAKEN ON THE TAX, AND CONSULT THE LOCALS. IF NOT YOU WILL JUST BE A NORMAL MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY SOON! cosmick

7:17pm Tue 21 Jan 14

prestonpete says...

cosmick wrote:
Mr MUNRO DO YOU THINK IT MAY BE AN IDEA TO REVERSE THE DECITION TAKEN ON THE TAX, AND CONSULT THE LOCALS. IF NOT YOU WILL JUST BE A NORMAL MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY SOON!
Absolutely!! Well said. That's right Tim. Very soon, you'll be swimming in the mess with the rest of us rather than looking down at us demanding we pay more to receive less (AGAIN)!! Get out whilst you still have your dignity.
[quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: Mr MUNRO DO YOU THINK IT MAY BE AN IDEA TO REVERSE THE DECITION TAKEN ON THE TAX, AND CONSULT THE LOCALS. IF NOT YOU WILL JUST BE A NORMAL MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY SOON![/p][/quote]Absolutely!! Well said. That's right Tim. Very soon, you'll be swimming in the mess with the rest of us rather than looking down at us demanding we pay more to receive less (AGAIN)!! Get out whilst you still have your dignity. prestonpete

10:47pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Foursite says...

http://www.southdors
etconservatives.com/
tim-munro
"A year of hard truths"
http://www.southdors etconservatives.com/ tim-munro "A year of hard truths" Foursite

9:37am Wed 22 Jan 14

Tillydog says...

Foursite wrote:
http://www.southdors

etconservatives.com/

tim-munro
"A year of hard truths"
Yes, thanx for the nod Mr Osborne, Its been a long time coming.x
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: http://www.southdors etconservatives.com/ tim-munro "A year of hard truths"[/p][/quote]Yes, thanx for the nod Mr Osborne, Its been a long time coming.x Tillydog

10:47am Wed 22 Jan 14

Gordon Bennett says...

I am not sure where they get the 50% increase in 2003 from. My council tax in 2003 increased by £159. Not a lot different from the 2014 increase in the precept. Low taxation Mr. Munro - what hypocrisy !
I am not sure where they get the 50% increase in 2003 from. My council tax in 2003 increased by £159. Not a lot different from the 2014 increase in the precept. Low taxation Mr. Munro - what hypocrisy ! Gordon Bennett

11:20am Wed 22 Jan 14

Wilbraham says...

Our new councillor is DUTHERIDGE Kristopher Robin
See http://www.dorsetfor
you.com/media.jsp?me
diaid=190151&filetyp
e=pdf
Our new councillor is DUTHERIDGE Kristopher Robin See http://www.dorsetfor you.com/media.jsp?me diaid=190151&filetyp e=pdf Wilbraham

12:48pm Wed 22 Jan 14

t.munro says...

Gordon Bennett wrote:
I am not sure where they get the 50% increase in 2003 from. My council tax in 2003 increased by £159. Not a lot different from the 2014 increase in the precept. Low taxation Mr. Munro - what hypocrisy !
Gordon
That was the WPBC rise.
Fact is they have no money to provide the services that are demanded.
I guess your saying, you want no services and your content that Portland continues getting a raw deal.
Thinks have changed, WPBC when they had money treated Portland badly
the job then was to attempt them to provide better services.
Now they have no money, they can't do the impossible.
It's easy to say it is someone else's responsibility.
I had an the illusion that Portland cared about its future, however reading stuff on here it looks as though nobody has a different solution and are happy with their lot. I have had great encouragement from others that do have a pride in the place that they have grown up an lived in, they have a strong desire to stop this downward slide. Each to their own, I am for going forward .
[quote][p][bold]Gordon Bennett[/bold] wrote: I am not sure where they get the 50% increase in 2003 from. My council tax in 2003 increased by £159. Not a lot different from the 2014 increase in the precept. Low taxation Mr. Munro - what hypocrisy ![/p][/quote]Gordon That was the WPBC rise. Fact is they have no money to provide the services that are demanded. I guess your saying, you want no services and your content that Portland continues getting a raw deal. Thinks have changed, WPBC when they had money treated Portland badly the job then was to attempt them to provide better services. Now they have no money, they can't do the impossible. It's easy to say it is someone else's responsibility. I had an the illusion that Portland cared about its future, however reading stuff on here it looks as though nobody has a different solution and are happy with their lot. I have had great encouragement from others that do have a pride in the place that they have grown up an lived in, they have a strong desire to stop this downward slide. Each to their own, I am for going forward . t.munro

1:02pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Wilbraham says...

t.munro wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
I am not sure where they get the 50% increase in 2003 from. My council tax in 2003 increased by £159. Not a lot different from the 2014 increase in the precept. Low taxation Mr. Munro - what hypocrisy !
Gordon
That was the WPBC rise.
Fact is they have no money to provide the services that are demanded.
I guess your saying, you want no services and your content that Portland continues getting a raw deal.
Thinks have changed, WPBC when they had money treated Portland badly
the job then was to attempt them to provide better services.
Now they have no money, they can't do the impossible.
It's easy to say it is someone else's responsibility.
I had an the illusion that Portland cared about its future, however reading stuff on here it looks as though nobody has a different solution and are happy with their lot. I have had great encouragement from others that do have a pride in the place that they have grown up an lived in, they have a strong desire to stop this downward slide. Each to their own, I am for going forward .
It's fine going forward but many people can't afford the increase you have proposed it will amount to approx. 8-10% rise in the total council tax bill. I have not met 1 person who is for this to date. Many of your fellow councillors are against it but were either away or didn't know what they were voting for. The Monday meeting should have been before the vote not after.
[quote][p][bold]t.munro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gordon Bennett[/bold] wrote: I am not sure where they get the 50% increase in 2003 from. My council tax in 2003 increased by £159. Not a lot different from the 2014 increase in the precept. Low taxation Mr. Munro - what hypocrisy ![/p][/quote]Gordon That was the WPBC rise. Fact is they have no money to provide the services that are demanded. I guess your saying, you want no services and your content that Portland continues getting a raw deal. Thinks have changed, WPBC when they had money treated Portland badly the job then was to attempt them to provide better services. Now they have no money, they can't do the impossible. It's easy to say it is someone else's responsibility. I had an the illusion that Portland cared about its future, however reading stuff on here it looks as though nobody has a different solution and are happy with their lot. I have had great encouragement from others that do have a pride in the place that they have grown up an lived in, they have a strong desire to stop this downward slide. Each to their own, I am for going forward .[/p][/quote]It's fine going forward but many people can't afford the increase you have proposed it will amount to approx. 8-10% rise in the total council tax bill. I have not met 1 person who is for this to date. Many of your fellow councillors are against it but were either away or didn't know what they were voting for. The Monday meeting should have been before the vote not after. Wilbraham

1:16pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Bob Goulding says...

Wilbraham wrote:
Our new councillor is DUTHERIDGE Kristopher Robin
See http://www.dorsetfor

you.com/media.jsp?me

diaid=190151&fil
etyp
e=pdf
Thanks for this but it begs the question "How can you be deemed to have been ELECTED if no votes were cast by the electorate?"

Even though the seat was uncontested, there should have been some sort of ‘yes or no’ approval vote so that the electorate could express their confidence (or not) and the candidate (if approved) could then claim to have a legitimate mandate. In the May 2007 Town (Parish) Council elections all 9 candidates were elected (or rather appointed) in this way. Hardly democratic!
[quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: Our new councillor is DUTHERIDGE Kristopher Robin See http://www.dorsetfor you.com/media.jsp?me diaid=190151&fil etyp e=pdf[/p][/quote]Thanks for this but it begs the question "How can you be deemed to have been ELECTED if no votes were cast by the electorate?" Even though the seat was uncontested, there should have been some sort of ‘yes or no’ approval vote so that the electorate could express their confidence (or not) and the candidate (if approved) could then claim to have a legitimate mandate. In the May 2007 Town (Parish) Council elections all 9 candidates were elected (or rather appointed) in this way. Hardly democratic! Bob Goulding

2:03pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Dave Aitch says...

What would the approximate £500.000 be spent on ?
Would it be a one off ?
Perhaps this rise for a couple of years to get whatever needs sorting then revert back to what we pay now.
Just thinking in type.
What would the approximate £500.000 be spent on ? Would it be a one off ? Perhaps this rise for a couple of years to get whatever needs sorting then revert back to what we pay now. Just thinking in type. Dave Aitch

2:06pm Wed 22 Jan 14

dark side says...

Mr Munro.You are still pushing through this large precept rise onto the people of Portland with no consideration to any one,people are finding it hard already with out this rise. Only this morning on the Radio, a charity who help's people with Det stated a 33 % rise in people seeking help. I have read one of your comments:- The Fact is Wpbc have no money and cant supply the services, this may be so.but you cant ask us to pick up this work every time, were will it end,150 this year 200 next.
You also said you had the illusion Portland people cared, of course they do and are very proud of are island. That why we live on it.By the Way can you confirm were you live Mr Monroe? You also said you are for going for ward, well you are going about it the wrong way. You haven't consulted with the community at all, you are out of touch the community.people are very upset about this increase. You only real answer was if they don't like vote us out in 2015,And it's only a pint of Beer a week.
Mr Munro.You are still pushing through this large precept rise onto the people of Portland with no consideration to any one,people are finding it hard already with out this rise. Only this morning on the Radio, a charity who help's people with Det stated a 33 % rise in people seeking help. I have read one of your comments:- The Fact is Wpbc have no money and cant supply the services, this may be so.but you cant ask us to pick up this work every time, were will it end,150 this year 200 next. You also said you had the illusion Portland people cared, of course they do and are very proud of are island. That why we live on it.By the Way can you confirm were you live Mr Monroe? You also said you are for going for ward, well you are going about it the wrong way. You haven't consulted with the community at all, you are out of touch the community.people are very upset about this increase. You only real answer was if they don't like vote us out in 2015,And it's only a pint of Beer a week. dark side

2:12pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Tillydog says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Wilbraham wrote:
Our new councillor is DUTHERIDGE Kristopher Robin
See http://www.dorsetfor


you.com/media.jsp?me


diaid=190151&fil

etyp
e=pdf
Thanks for this but it begs the question "How can you be deemed to have been ELECTED if no votes were cast by the electorate?"

Even though the seat was uncontested, there should have been some sort of ‘yes or no’ approval vote so that the electorate could express their confidence (or not) and the candidate (if approved) could then claim to have a legitimate mandate. In the May 2007 Town (Parish) Council elections all 9 candidates were elected (or rather appointed) in this way. Hardly democratic!
My apologies to Portland for my mistake in voting for him.He lied to me.He said he hated the Tories and stood for the green party.I gave him the benefit of the doubt until the next election.If we still have a council he will not be elected again There will be others standing in both Tophill East and West wards because of the damage he has caused.This can only serve to benefit democracy on the Island I hope the other 9 that voted for him feel the same way.
.Dog Bless
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilbraham[/bold] wrote: Our new councillor is DUTHERIDGE Kristopher Robin See http://www.dorsetfor you.com/media.jsp?me diaid=190151&fil etyp e=pdf[/p][/quote]Thanks for this but it begs the question "How can you be deemed to have been ELECTED if no votes were cast by the electorate?" Even though the seat was uncontested, there should have been some sort of ‘yes or no’ approval vote so that the electorate could express their confidence (or not) and the candidate (if approved) could then claim to have a legitimate mandate. In the May 2007 Town (Parish) Council elections all 9 candidates were elected (or rather appointed) in this way. Hardly democratic![/p][/quote]My apologies to Portland for my mistake in voting for him.He lied to me.He said he hated the Tories and stood for the green party.I gave him the benefit of the doubt until the next election.If we still have a council he will not be elected again There will be others standing in both Tophill East and West wards because of the damage he has caused.This can only serve to benefit democracy on the Island I hope the other 9 that voted for him feel the same way. .Dog Bless Tillydog

2:20pm Wed 22 Jan 14

portlandresident says...

Tim, we're all for change and improving the island, but without you in the council!! Yes, we love our isle, and as you can see from the 155+ posts on this article alone, we're passionate about looking after what's rightfully ours, but it's our isle, not yours. You can't justify putting up the rates, when we know **** well PTC are only in an advisory capacity. If WPBC get the money and then choose to do other things with it, how will you explain yourself then? Answer me that!! Get out man whilst you still can.
Tim, we're all for change and improving the island, but without you in the council!! Yes, we love our isle, and as you can see from the 155+ posts on this article alone, we're passionate about looking after what's rightfully ours, but it's our isle, not yours. You can't justify putting up the rates, when we know **** well PTC are only in an advisory capacity. If WPBC get the money and then choose to do other things with it, how will you explain yourself then? Answer me that!! Get out man whilst you still can. portlandresident

2:21pm Wed 22 Jan 14

portlandresident says...

Further to my last message, the four stars appeared when I entered the word d.amn
Further to my last message, the four stars appeared when I entered the word d.amn portlandresident

2:53pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Bob Goulding says...

dark side wrote:
Mr Munro.You are still pushing through this large precept rise onto the people of Portland with no consideration to any one,people are finding it hard already with out this rise. Only this morning on the Radio, a charity who help's people with Det stated a 33 % rise in people seeking help. I have read one of your comments:- The Fact is Wpbc have no money and cant supply the services, this may be so.but you cant ask us to pick up this work every time, were will it end,150 this year 200 next.
You also said you had the illusion Portland people cared, of course they do and are very proud of are island. That why we live on it.By the Way can you confirm were you live Mr Monroe? You also said you are for going for ward, well you are going about it the wrong way. You haven't consulted with the community at all, you are out of touch the community.people are very upset about this increase. You only real answer was if they don't like vote us out in 2015,And it's only a pint of Beer a week.
I am definitely with you on this dark side. To suggest that the Town Council cares more about Portland than the rest of us is pure arrogance and an insult to the great many of us who are equally, if not more passionate about Portland and its future prosperity.

With apologies to legitimate direct sales operations, the ‘only the price of a pint per week’ argument is a cheap ploy that has been used callously for decades by double glazing and other in home direct sales reps to persuade you to part with money that you can’t actually afford. This is no different!

Yes, we do need to vote them out if they continue to support this measure but that will only be possible if someone stands against them in the election. If they stand unopposed they will simply be re-elected by default (unless they do the honourable thing and stand down beforehand… now preferably).
[quote][p][bold]dark side[/bold] wrote: Mr Munro.You are still pushing through this large precept rise onto the people of Portland with no consideration to any one,people are finding it hard already with out this rise. Only this morning on the Radio, a charity who help's people with Det stated a 33 % rise in people seeking help. I have read one of your comments:- The Fact is Wpbc have no money and cant supply the services, this may be so.but you cant ask us to pick up this work every time, were will it end,150 this year 200 next. You also said you had the illusion Portland people cared, of course they do and are very proud of are island. That why we live on it.By the Way can you confirm were you live Mr Monroe? You also said you are for going for ward, well you are going about it the wrong way. You haven't consulted with the community at all, you are out of touch the community.people are very upset about this increase. You only real answer was if they don't like vote us out in 2015,And it's only a pint of Beer a week.[/p][/quote]I am definitely with you on this dark side. To suggest that the Town Council cares more about Portland than the rest of us is pure arrogance and an insult to the great many of us who are equally, if not more passionate about Portland and its future prosperity. With apologies to legitimate direct sales operations, the ‘only the price of a pint per week’ argument is a cheap ploy that has been used callously for decades by double glazing and other in home direct sales reps to persuade you to part with money that you can’t actually afford. This is no different! Yes, we do need to vote them out if they continue to support this measure but that will only be possible if someone stands against them in the election. If they stand unopposed they will simply be re-elected by default (unless they do the honourable thing and stand down beforehand… now preferably). Bob Goulding

2:53pm Wed 22 Jan 14

portland rebel says...

should our councilors not be fighting the council on behave of the people, demanding that we receive the services that we already pay for, and not rolling over to the council.
if someone was charging someone for a service and then providing that service, they would be sued would they not, or would you just give them more money.....
should our councilors not be fighting the council on behave of the people, demanding that we receive the services that we already pay for, and not rolling over to the council. if someone was charging someone for a service and then providing that service, they would be sued would they not, or would you just give them more money..... portland rebel

3:15pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Bob Goulding says...

portland rebel wrote:
should our councilors not be fighting the council on behave of the people, demanding that we receive the services that we already pay for, and not rolling over to the council.
if someone was charging someone for a service and then providing that service, they would be sued would they not, or would you just give them more money.....
Tim Munro is Underhill's voice on WPBC. He clearly has little or no influence which rather questions the point of PTC's involvement with WPBC full stop.

In effect, what Tim Munro is saying is "Give us half a million pounds of your money then we can ignore WPBC and do our own thing. Oh, and by the way, you will have to apply to us (the PTC) for access to your money and we will ultimately decide how it is to be spent." I think I would rather trust a banker.
[quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: should our councilors not be fighting the council on behave of the people, demanding that we receive the services that we already pay for, and not rolling over to the council. if someone was charging someone for a service and then providing that service, they would be sued would they not, or would you just give them more money.....[/p][/quote]Tim Munro is Underhill's voice on WPBC. He clearly has little or no influence which rather questions the point of PTC's involvement with WPBC full stop. In effect, what Tim Munro is saying is "Give us half a million pounds of your money then we can ignore WPBC and do our own thing. Oh, and by the way, you will have to apply to us (the PTC) for access to your money and we will ultimately decide how it is to be spent." I think I would rather trust a banker. Bob Goulding

3:55pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Foursite says...

Thursday, 9 February 2012
WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL
Standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Comittee
Notice of Local Determination - Code of Conduct
Complaint in respect of Councillor T Munro - Portland Town Council
A complaint was considered by the Council's standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Committee following local investigation for determination - Reference 22/11 (B).
The complaint alleged that Councillor T Munro of Portland Town Council had breached section 3(2)(b) of the Town Council's Code of Conduct by bullying another person at a meeting of Portland Town Council on 17 November 2010.The local investigation was carried out by D Fairbairn, on behalf of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. His report was considered by the Standards Hearings and Consideration sub Committee of the Council on 31st January 2012.Having considered the report, the Sub-Committee found that Cllr Munro had breached the Town Council's Code of Conduct and he was dealt with by way of censure. A public notice to this effect is required to be published pursuant to the provisions of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008.
D M Clarke
Chief Executive Weymouth and Portland Borough Council February 2012 WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL
Thursday, 9 February 2012 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL Standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Comittee Notice of Local Determination - Code of Conduct Complaint in respect of Councillor T Munro - Portland Town Council A complaint was considered by the Council's standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Committee following local investigation for determination - Reference 22/11 (B). The complaint alleged that Councillor T Munro of Portland Town Council had breached section 3(2)(b) of the Town Council's Code of Conduct by bullying another person at a meeting of Portland Town Council on 17 November 2010.The local investigation was carried out by D Fairbairn, on behalf of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. His report was considered by the Standards Hearings and Consideration sub Committee of the Council on 31st January 2012.Having considered the report, the Sub-Committee found that Cllr Munro had breached the Town Council's Code of Conduct and he was dealt with by way of censure. A public notice to this effect is required to be published pursuant to the provisions of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008. D M Clarke Chief Executive Weymouth and Portland Borough Council February 2012 WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL Foursite

4:04pm Wed 22 Jan 14

dark side says...

I'm not a Portlander, I've lived on the Island for over 32 years. And have grown to love the island and it's people. What I have learnt is they are very proud, and in times of trouble they stand together. This I witnessed in the 70'S with the floods, and again this week I have witnessed the community standing together on this bully boy tactics we are having imposed on us.
I ask you again Mr Monro can you confirm to me Please were do you live?
WEYMOUTH OR PORTLAND.
I'm not a Portlander, I've lived on the Island for over 32 years. And have grown to love the island and it's people. What I have learnt is they are very proud, and in times of trouble they stand together. This I witnessed in the 70'S with the floods, and again this week I have witnessed the community standing together on this bully boy tactics we are having imposed on us. I ask you again Mr Monro can you confirm to me Please were do you live? WEYMOUTH OR PORTLAND. dark side

4:17pm Wed 22 Jan 14

shy talk says...

dark side wrote:
I'm not a Portlander, I've lived on the Island for over 32 years. And have grown to love the island and it's people. What I have learnt is they are very proud, and in times of trouble they stand together. This I witnessed in the 70'S with the floods, and again this week I have witnessed the community standing together on this bully boy tactics we are having imposed on us.
I ask you again Mr Monro can you confirm to me Please were do you live?
WEYMOUTH OR PORTLAND.
Go to the Portland Town Council website. His address is there for all to see if you are that adamant as to where he lives.
[quote][p][bold]dark side[/bold] wrote: I'm not a Portlander, I've lived on the Island for over 32 years. And have grown to love the island and it's people. What I have learnt is they are very proud, and in times of trouble they stand together. This I witnessed in the 70'S with the floods, and again this week I have witnessed the community standing together on this bully boy tactics we are having imposed on us. I ask you again Mr Monro can you confirm to me Please were do you live? WEYMOUTH OR PORTLAND.[/p][/quote]Go to the Portland Town Council website. His address is there for all to see if you are that adamant as to where he lives. shy talk

4:28pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Bob Goulding says...

Foursite wrote:
Thursday, 9 February 2012
WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL
Standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Comittee
Notice of Local Determination - Code of Conduct
Complaint in respect of Councillor T Munro - Portland Town Council
A complaint was considered by the Council's standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Committee following local investigation for determination - Reference 22/11 (B).
The complaint alleged that Councillor T Munro of Portland Town Council had breached section 3(2)(b) of the Town Council's Code of Conduct by bullying another person at a meeting of Portland Town Council on 17 November 2010.The local investigation was carried out by D Fairbairn, on behalf of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. His report was considered by the Standards Hearings and Consideration sub Committee of the Council on 31st January 2012.Having considered the report, the Sub-Committee found that Cllr Munro had breached the Town Council's Code of Conduct and he was dealt with by way of censure. A public notice to this effect is required to be published pursuant to the provisions of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008.
D M Clarke
Chief Executive Weymouth and Portland Borough Council February 2012 WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL
Most recent public info I have from the web is:

Tim Munro
Address: 167 Fortuneswell , Portland, DT5 1LU
Telephone: 01305 826560
[quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: Thursday, 9 February 2012 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL Standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Comittee Notice of Local Determination - Code of Conduct Complaint in respect of Councillor T Munro - Portland Town Council A complaint was considered by the Council's standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Committee following local investigation for determination - Reference 22/11 (B). The complaint alleged that Councillor T Munro of Portland Town Council had breached section 3(2)(b) of the Town Council's Code of Conduct by bullying another person at a meeting of Portland Town Council on 17 November 2010.The local investigation was carried out by D Fairbairn, on behalf of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. His report was considered by the Standards Hearings and Consideration sub Committee of the Council on 31st January 2012.Having considered the report, the Sub-Committee found that Cllr Munro had breached the Town Council's Code of Conduct and he was dealt with by way of censure. A public notice to this effect is required to be published pursuant to the provisions of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008. D M Clarke Chief Executive Weymouth and Portland Borough Council February 2012 WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL[/p][/quote]Most recent public info I have from the web is: Tim Munro Address: 167 Fortuneswell , Portland, DT5 1LU Telephone: 01305 826560 Bob Goulding

4:36pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Bob Goulding says...

Sorry Four Site the above should have quoted Dark Side's last post. Something changed part way through typing.
Sorry Four Site the above should have quoted Dark Side's last post. Something changed part way through typing. Bob Goulding

4:37pm Wed 22 Jan 14

dark side says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Foursite wrote:
Thursday, 9 February 2012
WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL
Standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Comittee
Notice of Local Determination - Code of Conduct
Complaint in respect of Councillor T Munro - Portland Town Council
A complaint was considered by the Council's standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Committee following local investigation for determination - Reference 22/11 (B).
The complaint alleged that Councillor T Munro of Portland Town Council had breached section 3(2)(b) of the Town Council's Code of Conduct by bullying another person at a meeting of Portland Town Council on 17 November 2010.The local investigation was carried out by D Fairbairn, on behalf of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. His report was considered by the Standards Hearings and Consideration sub Committee of the Council on 31st January 2012.Having considered the report, the Sub-Committee found that Cllr Munro had breached the Town Council's Code of Conduct and he was dealt with by way of censure. A public notice to this effect is required to be published pursuant to the provisions of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008.
D M Clarke
Chief Executive Weymouth and Portland Borough Council February 2012 WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL
Most recent public info I have from the web is:

Tim Munro
Address: 167 Fortuneswell , Portland, DT5 1LU
Telephone: 01305 826560
Thanks for clearing that up for me bob, There seems to of been a bit of confusion over the last couple of day's some people thought he lived in wyke.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Foursite[/bold] wrote: Thursday, 9 February 2012 WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL Standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Comittee Notice of Local Determination - Code of Conduct Complaint in respect of Councillor T Munro - Portland Town Council A complaint was considered by the Council's standards Hearings and Consideration Sub-Committee following local investigation for determination - Reference 22/11 (B). The complaint alleged that Councillor T Munro of Portland Town Council had breached section 3(2)(b) of the Town Council's Code of Conduct by bullying another person at a meeting of Portland Town Council on 17 November 2010.The local investigation was carried out by D Fairbairn, on behalf of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. His report was considered by the Standards Hearings and Consideration sub Committee of the Council on 31st January 2012.Having considered the report, the Sub-Committee found that Cllr Munro had breached the Town Council's Code of Conduct and he was dealt with by way of censure. A public notice to this effect is required to be published pursuant to the provisions of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008. D M Clarke Chief Executive Weymouth and Portland Borough Council February 2012 WEYMOUTH & PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL[/p][/quote]Most recent public info I have from the web is: Tim Munro Address: 167 Fortuneswell , Portland, DT5 1LU Telephone: 01305 826560[/p][/quote]Thanks for clearing that up for me bob, There seems to of been a bit of confusion over the last couple of day's some people thought he lived in wyke. dark side

4:56pm Wed 22 Jan 14

dark side says...

shy talk wrote:
dark side wrote:
I'm not a Portlander, I've lived on the Island for over 32 years. And have grown to love the island and it's people. What I have learnt is they are very proud, and in times of trouble they stand together. This I witnessed in the 70'S with the floods, and again this week I have witnessed the community standing together on this bully boy tactics we are having imposed on us.
I ask you again Mr Monro can you confirm to me Please were do you live?
WEYMOUTH OR PORTLAND.
Go to the Portland Town Council website. His address is there for all to see if you are that adamant as to where he lives.
There lies the Problem'' Shy talk''.The PTC Webb is six months out of date, a lot can happen in six months. Some people I have spoken to have said Mr Munroe lives in Wyke?
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dark side[/bold] wrote: I'm not a Portlander, I've lived on the Island for over 32 years. And have grown to love the island and it's people. What I have learnt is they are very proud, and in times of trouble they stand together. This I witnessed in the 70'S with the floods, and again this week I have witnessed the community standing together on this bully boy tactics we are having imposed on us. I ask you again Mr Monro can you confirm to me Please were do you live? WEYMOUTH OR PORTLAND.[/p][/quote]Go to the Portland Town Council website. His address is there for all to see if you are that adamant as to where he lives.[/p][/quote]There lies the Problem'' Shy talk''.The PTC Webb is six months out of date, a lot can happen in six months. Some people I have spoken to have said Mr Munroe lives in Wyke? dark side

6:40pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Gordon Bennett says...

Mr. Munro - Yes, I know it was the WPBC rise. I was simply comparing the two. Not much difference in cash terms - neither strikes me as 'low taxation'. I agree with others, you are out of touch with the community. Pride and community spirit is alive and kicking on the island. You only have to look at the beach clean over the past few weekends. And what a splendid job the volunteers did. If the council had been in charge they would still be discussing who owned the land, what department was going to be responsible and what safety equipment was required. When was the council and community spirit ever synonymous ? I would suggest quite the opposite. Leave people to decide for themselves. More tax simply leads to more resentment and less community spirit.
Mr. Munro - Yes, I know it was the WPBC rise. I was simply comparing the two. Not much difference in cash terms - neither strikes me as 'low taxation'. I agree with others, you are out of touch with the community. Pride and community spirit is alive and kicking on the island. You only have to look at the beach clean over the past few weekends. And what a splendid job the volunteers did. If the council had been in charge they would still be discussing who owned the land, what department was going to be responsible and what safety equipment was required. When was the council and community spirit ever synonymous ? I would suggest quite the opposite. Leave people to decide for themselves. More tax simply leads to more resentment and less community spirit. Gordon Bennett

12:05am Fri 24 Jan 14

John New says...

Does anyone know the legal position if candidates stand next year and get elected on a "Zero expenditure - shut the PTC down" policy?
Does anyone know the legal position if candidates stand next year and get elected on a "Zero expenditure - shut the PTC down" policy? John New

1:13am Fri 24 Jan 14

Kimberlin1 says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
portland rebel wrote:
should our councilors not be fighting the council on behave of the people, demanding that we receive the services that we already pay for, and not rolling over to the council.
if someone was charging someone for a service and then providing that service, they would be sued would they not, or would you just give them more money.....Tim Munro is Underhill's voice on WPBC. He clearly has little or no influence which rather questions the point of PTC's involvement with WPBC full stop.

In effect, what Tim Munro is saying is "Give us half a million pounds of your money then we can ignore WPBC and do our own thing. Oh, and by the way, you will have to apply to us (the PTC) for access to your money and we will ultimately decide how it is to be spent.Cllr Munro is no longer the "voice" for Underhill on the W&PBC, he lost his seat and he also lost his seat on DCC. he is now only a PTC.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: should our councilors not be fighting the council on behave of the people, demanding that we receive the services that we already pay for, and not rolling over to the council. if someone was charging someone for a service and then providing that service, they would be sued would they not, or would you just give them more money.....[/p][/quote]Tim Munro is Underhill's voice on WPBC. He clearly has little or no influence which rather questions the point of PTC's involvement with WPBC full stop. In effect, what Tim Munro is saying is "Give us half a million pounds of your money then we can ignore WPBC and do our own thing. Oh, and by the way, you will have to apply to us (the PTC) for access to your money and we will ultimately decide how it is to be spent.Cllr Munro is no longer the "voice" for Underhill on the W&PBC, he lost his seat and he also lost his seat on DCC. he is now only a PTC. Kimberlin1

10:02am Fri 24 Jan 14

Bob Goulding says...

Kimberlin1 wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
portland rebel wrote:
should our councilors not be fighting the council on behave of the people, demanding that we receive the services that we already pay for, and not rolling over to the council.
if someone was charging someone for a service and then providing that service, they would be sued would they not, or would you just give them more money.....Tim Munro is Underhill's voice on WPBC. He clearly has little or no influence which rather questions the point of PTC's involvement with WPBC full stop.

In effect, what Tim Munro is saying is "Give us half a million pounds of your money then we can ignore WPBC and do our own thing. Oh, and by the way, you will have to apply to us (the PTC) for access to your money and we will ultimately decide how it is to be spent.Cllr Munro is no longer the "voice" for Underhill on the W&PBC, he lost his seat and he also lost his seat on DCC. he is now only a PTC.Sorry, getting confused with Ian Munro-Price (Tophill West).
[quote][p][bold]Kimberlin1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: should our councilors not be fighting the council on behave of the people, demanding that we receive the services that we already pay for, and not rolling over to the council. if someone was charging someone for a service and then providing that service, they would be sued would they not, or would you just give them more money.....[/p][/quote]Tim Munro is Underhill's voice on WPBC. He clearly has little or no influence which rather questions the point of PTC's involvement with WPBC full stop. In effect, what Tim Munro is saying is "Give us half a million pounds of your money then we can ignore WPBC and do our own thing. Oh, and by the way, you will have to apply to us (the PTC) for access to your money and we will ultimately decide how it is to be spent.Cllr Munro is no longer the "voice" for Underhill on the W&PBC, he lost his seat and he also lost his seat on DCC. he is now only a PTC.[/p][/quote]Sorry, getting confused with Ian Munro-Price (Tophill West). Bob Goulding

8:18am Sat 25 Jan 14

Nomalice says...

A little sum for the PTC to consider
Winter fuel payment for pensioners =£200 per annum.

Energy company grab (£300 over 3 years) = £100 per annum
Shop bill increase on £50 per week shop. = £ 50. Per annum
Proposed Precept increase approx = £ 72. Per annum

Hard winter =. DEBTS or DEATHS

THINK AGAIN
A little sum for the PTC to consider Winter fuel payment for pensioners =£200 per annum. Energy company grab (£300 over 3 years) = £100 per annum Shop bill increase on £50 per week shop. = £ 50. Per annum Proposed Precept increase approx = £ 72. Per annum Hard winter =. DEBTS or DEATHS THINK AGAIN Nomalice

8:31pm Sun 26 Jan 14

smilealoft44 says...

portlandboy wrote:
drsymes wrote:
I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise.

How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?
Well 4 others seem to remember the word 'principal' not being mentioned, so let's look at it more closely...
Were the five related to each other?
Were the four related to each other?

Based on the fact that nearly 50% of councillors who attended the December meeting completely disagree with what was either proposed or actually the subject of the vote, surely this should make the whole decision process null and void. Why not simply re-address the proposal at another meeting. That way EVERYONE will be fully attentive and aware of what is being voted on and will be able to vote accordingly.
I have posted a comment on this matter under the story appeal for calm at MONDAYS MEETING comment 21 please look and give me your thoughts.
[quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]drsymes[/bold] wrote: I have spoken personally to five Portland Town Councillors who believe that in the December meeting they only voted in PRINCIPLE on the idea of a precept raise. How can 5 Councillors have got it so wrong?[/p][/quote]Well 4 others seem to remember the word 'principal' not being mentioned, so let's look at it more closely... Were the five related to each other? Were the four related to each other? Based on the fact that nearly 50% of councillors who attended the December meeting completely disagree with what was either proposed or actually the subject of the vote, surely this should make the whole decision process null and void. Why not simply re-address the proposal at another meeting. That way EVERYONE will be fully attentive and aware of what is being voted on and will be able to vote accordingly.[/p][/quote]I have posted a comment on this matter under the story appeal for calm at MONDAYS MEETING comment 21 please look and give me your thoughts. smilealoft44

Comments are closed on this article.

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