The Hidden Glasgow Forums

Dexter St. Clair wrote:

hound dog wrote:

The Egg Man wrote:
So, if it's not his sexuality nor his betrayal of his partner, what does his position as Leader of the Council have to do with anything?

Maybe some people consider that engaging in a criminal act is not very appropriate behaviour for the Leader of the Council

Evidence please for the criminal act and his admission.

Evidence swallowed (see earlier post). Admission here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-21078316

The Egg Man wrote:

SomeRandomBint wrote:Aye, insufficient evidence of a crime. Not insufficient evidence of the act taking place.

I hear scyrrilous rumours that one of the participants swallowed the evidence

*Snork*

It's not just criminal acts which get you into trouble now.

I'm not saying I want to see the guy out on his ear, because I don't think it's that big a deal really. It's more the feeling I get that it's one rule for them, another for the rest of us.

You're probably right. Most people don't put their job on the line every 4 years or so.[/quote]

What can I say? You pays your money, you takes your choice. If anyone goes into politics without realising that even the most minor indiscretion give ammunition to the critics/opposition, more fool them.

A cautionary tale. Many years ago, I worked for a local authority far away from here. Through various channels, I found out that a local councillor was being paid more (for failing) to attend Council Meetings than I was being paid for working 37.5 hours per week. That left me with a higher expectation of my local politicians. If you're going to be earning more than the local average wage, you have a duty to fulfill. If the Chief Exec of a council can be dismissed for sexual shenannigoats, then, y'know...

As I say, I don't care who does who or where or when. But I have several roles in my life which require me to conduct myself in a certain way. Not cos I'm special, but because for the majority of people in Glasgow, if the polis have to ask you to cease and desist, you're doing something wrong.

Guacho wrote:

Dexter St. Clair wrote:
Evidence please for the criminal act and his admission.

Evidence swallowed (see earlier post). Admission here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-21078316

I believe, if you actually read the BBC article, he doesn't actually 'admit' to anything more than having an affair and falling below his own standards.

Let's not beat around the bush. If you've been reported to the Prostitute and Physical for an alleged incident, you've been caught doing something you shouldn't have been doing. Whether it's a criminal offence or not is a further matter to be decided, and not by the likes of me (thank God).

In this case, there was no crime committed.

I'm more concerned by the amount of money which has been spent so far on this George Square debacle and they still can't decide what it going on with it. I'm married to an Englishman (I know, don't judge me) who is quite fond of his adopted home. When I filled him in tonight on the plans for George Square, he went a bit mental, with the words "What the f*** is wrong with what's there? How much bigger do they want the f***ing Freshers Fair to be next year?". If that's what the "outsiders" think of the plans, what does that tell you?

The Egg Man wrote:

Guacho wrote:

Dexter St. Clair wrote:
Evidence please for the criminal act and his admission.

Evidence swallowed (see earlier post). Admission here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-21078316

I believe, if you actually read the BBC article, he doesn't actually 'admit' to anything more than having an affair and falling below his own standards.

So, the police reported the Leader of Glasgow City Council to the procurator fiscal for having an affair and falling below his own standard - are you serious?? And I've yet to hear him issue a contradiction of what has been widely reported in the press.

Regarding the "lifeless relics" quote - I would have to hunt for it and don't have time right now. It was in some report about his meeting with the Chamber of Commerce I think - probably from a link on the Restore George Square website. Anyway, regardless of whether or not that was his exact words, his actions over George Square show clearly that is his attitude. I think the manner in which he has conducted the whole George Square debacle is a disgrace, and concerns me far more than any "indiscretions" in his private life. Having said that, the police obviously had good reason to believe that one particular indiscretion constituted a criminal act, otherwise they would not have bothered drawing up a report for the procurator fiscal.

hound dog wrote:

The Egg Man wrote:

Guacho wrote:

Dexter St. Clair wrote:
Evidence please for the criminal act and his admission.

Evidence swallowed (see earlier post). Admission here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-21078316

I believe, if you actually read the BBC article, he doesn't actually 'admit' to anything more than having an affair and falling below his own standards.

So, the police reported the Leader of Glasgow City Council to the procurator fiscal for having an affair and falling below his own standard - are you serious?? And I've yet to hear him issue a contradiction of what has been widely reported in the press.

Why would he, or anyone, feel the need to contradict an allegation for which the fiscal says there's insufficient evidence?

.................. Having said that, the police obviously had good reason to believe that one particular indiscretion constituted a criminal act, otherwise they would not have bothered drawing up a report for the procurator fiscal.

Fortunately for the justice system, that ain't a decision for the cops.

Somebody's wakened up? See what happens when you write to your councillor

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-21058651

George Square is to undergo a substantial facelift rather than a radical redesign, Councillor Gordon Matheson, Leader of the Council, announced today. Details of the facelift are to be announced later, however, it will include retaining the statues and grassed areas, and replacing the red tarmac.

A lesser man might think that was the outcome he'd hoped for in the first place

I am glad they have been paying attention. And I think it takes guts to back down on something like this, so credit where it is due.

Great - credit where credit is due.

Tell that to the 6 companies/teams that devoted resources to a doomed (yet again GCC?) design competition on a short timescale.

The council will find it increasingly difficult to get anyone with an ounce of sense to enter any future competitions as their record is so dismal.

SomeRandomBint wrote:What the f*** is wrong with what's there?

I'm not sure if colour blindness can be corrected, worth a Google though.

HollowHorn wrote:

SomeRandomBint wrote:What the f*** is wrong with what's there?

I'm not sure if colour blindness can be corrected, worth a Google though.

Hehe! To be fair, he's only seen it in its current guise. And I think he's started to switch off now when I go into one of my "I remember when this were all trees..." rants.

How about a good news story from our fair city? This school has come along, long way; it's great to see it doing so well.

Durachdan,

Eddy

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/educ ... t.19979834

Bingo Bango wrote:Great - credit where credit is due.

Tell that to the 6 companies/teams that devoted resources to a doomed (yet again GCC?) design competition on a short timescale.

The council will find it increasingly difficult to get anyone with an ounce of sense to enter any future competitions as their record is so dismal.

At least five out of the six would have been a waste of time anyway.

dimairt wrote:How about a good news story from our fair city? This school has come along, long way; it's great to see it doing so well.

Durachdan,

Eddy

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/educ ... t.19979834

Heh. The Andy has been picking and choosing its pupils for the last 20 years, and leaving the non-denom schools to deal with the rest of them.

They've recently introduced compulsory blazers costing £60 each. I'm not sure the uniform grants cover those.

Sorry if I sound bitter, but I've had 20 years of hearing how bloody marvellous St Andrew's is. Pfft.