Which Councillor ...
* who has told his colleagues on three separate occasions over the past five years that he has definitely left the SNP
* voted against the SNP Group Leader becoming Convener in 2007 (voting for a Labour candidate)
* consistently and continually briefs against other councillors behind their backs
* and refuses to stand under a party ticket so as not to compromise himself (sic, ad infinitum)
presented a report to the last SNP Branch Meeting on behalf of the SNP Group, but without the knowledge or permission of the SNP Group Leader?
* voted against the SNP Group Leader becoming Convener in 2007 (voting for a Labour candidate)
* consistently and continually briefs against other councillors behind their backs
* and refuses to stand under a party ticket so as not to compromise himself (sic, ad infinitum)
presented a report to the last SNP Branch Meeting on behalf of the SNP Group, but without the knowledge or permission of the SNP Group Leader?
15 comments:
I think I might know the supercilious, two faced "gentleman" that you are referring to.
You have to remember though that he only "supports" the SNP because they line his big fat wallet with rent from his property on Bayhead. I'm sure if they moved, things would be a whole heap different.
What a dilemma. Can I guess - would it be that long streak of misery that portrays himself as a Man of God – such an eminent Christian – that all his Christian brothers and sisters on the council deserted him and left him languishing on the back benches. He’s been found out – and are we glad. There is also talk that the Kirk Session is taking an interest in his ability to utter untruths without even blushing. Fantastic.
Is this the councillor who got more than 900 votes from his electorate at the last election?
More than any other councillor?
How many would you have got Angus?
hee hee!
The people have spoken!
More agendas.
Us outsiders only have one question - Who are y'all talking about?
I would walk etc etc etc
One thing's for sure, Angus wouldn't have stabbed his fellow candidates in the back after having convinced them to stand for election.
He would also have been voted on as the chair of the committee of his choice rather than pushed onto the back benches by his council colleagues and voted onto nothing.
He still has the respect of all his former council colleagues even now, one thing that the "long streak of misery" doesn't have and will never have.
I could go on all day. Jokes on you mate.
Ha Ha
900 votes. Aye, how many of them were secured from poor cailleach’s who fell for the, “Oh, ghraidh I’m a Man of God” routine. “I’m true to my word, well at least till I meet the next person, and if I have to change my view/opinion to suit that cailleach – that’s exactly what I’ll do”. (Just ask Mr Manford)
He’s meant to be a wee bit of colour just now. Poor soul. How he must hate being rumbled as a lying, twisted, money motivated fraud. He is also, in a desperate attempt to be loved, regularly found going around work places handing out fudge and tablet. (ask the staff what they think) Truly, a great man moves among us. Aye, he’s a man of many mansions – the only ingredients he lacks is a wee dose of integrity and a major smattering of honesty. But, hey – you can’t buy them with smarmy words, long prayers or with filthy cash……. He’s doomed. When’s the Kirk Session hearing? Will it be all ticket affair…?
Levaing aside the question of the actual truth or otherwise of the negative comments made about said councillor, do any of you (including the blog owner) actually have the balls to name him on this blog?
Didn't this ex-colleague of yours get lawyers to threaten you with a libel action? To which you gave a characteristically forthright response, which had him almost exploding with self-righteous indignation.
Please publish the letter from his lawyers.
Aye, you're all very brave hiding behind your computers, delivering subjective slanders which can surely only hurt the family of the "unnamed" individual.
How clever of you - well done.
Anon 7:39 How can the "unnamed" individuals family be hurt if the cap does not fit. So you seem to know who it is then why do you not name him? Then the rest of us will know who he is.
Anon 5:50
It is quite obvious who Angus & co's thinly veiled assaults are aimed at. If you don't know who this person is, either you are being "clever" again or you haven't read the previous entries on this blog.
Angus has been sporadically persecuting this individual on his blog for many, many months. It is precisely because the cap does NOT fit that his family might be hurt.
I hope they are not too upset though. If the insults came from anyone with a shred of credibility, they might take them a bit more seriously. But the delusional rants from a shower of pathetic imbiciles should not upset anyone.
Don't let them get you down!
Anon 7:42
So which one of the bullet points on the original post is incorrect or persecuting the individual because I happen to know that every single one is a fact.
The only thing that hurts is the truth.
900 miles -- just goes to prove "YOU CAN FOOL A LOT OF THE PEOPLE A LOT OF THE TIME".
Yadda yadda yadda.
I WOULD WALK 500 MILES...ETC you may (or may not) have been the one who voted 500 times...but soemone sure did....
Post a Comment