Share |
The truths they don't want you to read....

Friday, August 13, 2010

Licencing Board - the ramifications

The mild-mannered and highly able Chair of the Licencing Board, Cllr Martin Taylor, is busy denouncing his colleagues in the Gazette this week for voting against a Sunday Licence for the Golf Club.

In an extraordinary outburst, according to Cllr Taylor the five Lewis Councillors ignored the legal advice they were given and moved to refuse. Cllr Taylor wants to see his colleagues face a surcharge to cover the £10,000 or so the Golf Club appeal will cost. [Link not working at time of posting]

One of the Councillors has previous form for doing just the same, as I can testify, having watched him tell us to vote against another Sunday licence based on his knowledge of the premises. 'Knowledge' that I was able to completely refund and expose as being nothing more than preconceived lies to cover his bias.

As the refusal was on the grounds of 'public health' why do these self-same Councillors oppose the Sunday opening of leisure facilities in Lewis and Harris, but not Uist?

However, the best part has yet to be put in the public domain.

One of those attending the meeting tells me that the objector from either the Lords Day Observance Society or the Church (he said they blurred into one bundle of smug piety) opened his remarks with the word "Brethern!"

Image if an objector started with "Fellow Masons" there would be an outcry, but the clear and deliberate use of religious language herded the sheep nicely into the fold.

I am SO looking forward to the appeal....

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

The following should happen if folk were honest.

John Mackay – resign from the licensing board due to the direct conflict of interests as he is also an Elder of the Church.

Norman Macleod – resign from the licensing board due to the direct conflict of interests as he is also (I think) an Elder of the Church.

Maroot – resign from the licensing board due to the direct conflict of interests as he is also an Elder of the Church. And while he is been honest about his genuine beliefs also declare himself and SNP councillor.

Iain Mackenzie – resign from the licensing board due to the direct conflict of interests as he is also an Elder of the Church.

If the above gentlemen were of a different religion the current situation could be akin to them sitting in the Durex boardroom. Come on guys be honest with your politics

Anonymous said...

Good for Mr Taylor now thats what a councillor should be able to do and not hide behind a door and agree with everything good for you Martin (Councillor) Taylor

Anonymous said...

Make them pay.£££

Anonymous said...

The Masons use brethren too as in the brotherhood. Not exclusive to christians I'm afraid,be they either on or off the level!!

Anonymous said...

Do think that if they sat in the Durex Boardroom they would have some Protection

Anonymous said...

http://www.stornowaygolfclub.co.uk/component/content/article/48-press-release-13082010

Anonymous said...

While we're on the subject of hypocrisy, a little clip from The West Wing, for those who still rail against working on a Sunday.

Anonymous said...

I am totally astonished that these people have not "declared an interest". How on earth did so many elders get onto the board anyway...and nobody saw this type of thing coming..not.Surely the press should have made more of there being so many of them on the licensing board. I am not anti church but they should be more honest and upfront in these matters.

Anonymous said...

how does one "REFUND KNOWLEDGE"?
do you mean "Refute"?

Anonymous said...

If public health is really such an issue, get the Woodlands Centre open on a sunday afternoon so folk can pop in for a cuppa and a wee cake. Better than a dram and chaser.

Anonymous said...

All this talk of Sunday working is ridiculous. It's been happening for years, paid for by the comhairle. Every Sunday morning around seven a CnES road sweeper trundles (very loudly) around Stornoway collecting the detrita from the night before so the taliban won't be shocked by seeing it on their way to church.

Anonymous said...

Do you mean that because you don't believe in drinking you can't serve on the licensing board?

Anonymous said...

Those councillors or wee frees should not be allows to vote on such an issue. A direct conflict of interest just like when the council decided on which accountancy firm to use for the school contract & the members involved didnt go for the cheapest (Nic Acc) but the firm that one of the councillors had family connections with (CIB)but Angus sorted them out. You would think they would learn from that not to do to same kind of thing again. But I suppose the council have no common sense so what do you expect.

Anonymous said...

i'm new... expectancy to despatch around more oftentimes!

Anonymous said...

1.18 All it means is that if you can't separate church politics, council politics and the role of the licencing board then you should resign.

Anonymous said...

Why leave out Councillor Annie Macdonald from the list of councillors with conflicting interests. She is a Mormon and we all know their views on alcohol (and also tea and coffee!) Get them all off the board I say

Anonymous said...

12.09
Does that mean that members who are not sabatarians should declare an interest as they are also biased in favour of Sunday activity of all kinds whether it be Sunday opening of Pubs to Ferry travel etc..?
By the way I am not a sabatarian only someone posing the question

Anonymous said...

08:26

No, not at all. Why would one assume that just because someone is not a Church member that they're automatically in favour of anything "Sunday" related? I’m not really in favour of Sunday drinking but this refusal was very wrong & highlights a deep routed issue/problem within our community.

The role of a Councillor is to sit on various committees & make educated, reasoned, informed & hopefully correct decisions based on what is in front of them. The Councillor been a "sabatarian" or not shouldn't have any bearing on it. If a Councillor has particularly strong views due to his or her religion then there may be certain parts of council business that they should opt out from.

The board were advised that there were no legal grounds for refusal, at that point a line was crossed when the certain members voted against it (regardless of their religious views) as the chances of an appeal by the Golf Club could only be considered to be quite high. An appeal will cost the Council money at time when it could be better spent elsewhere, it is a ridiculous situation.

Is just coincidence which particular members voted against it? There are two possible explanations in my mind, incompetence (in ignoring the direct legal advice) or religiously prejudiced voting. Only they can explain.

I really don’t care if every member of the Council is an elder as long as they can differentiate between Church issues and local authority issues and go about their business been honest, wise and respectful of all parts of the communities they are supposed to represent.

Anonymous said...

Very Interesting!
Thank You!

Anonymous said...

Very Interesting!
Thank You!

Anonymous said...

Everyone is biased to some extent so why have a board? Just have the legal dept making the decisions. We should also remember that these people were democratically elected, often more than once and with a healthy support. If people aren't happy then vote them out. Perhaps the issue is board membership. Anyone enlighten me as to how the board members are selected?

Anonymous said...

Web design
very useful, thanx a lot for thsi article ...... This is exactly what I was looking for.

Anonymous said...

8:49, piss off, you spamming twat.

Anonymous said...

What necessary words... super, a remarkable idea