'Loan could save pool' (From Daily Echo)

So how does borrowing money "not cost a penny?"

The lordshill Masterplan was a Tory concept & instead of using money to repair the pool a brand new pool was to be built.
a way that Cllr Hannides has suggested wouldn't cost us a penny & that's selling some of the Art that's rarely if ever seen

The council has NO MONEY to maintain a caretaker at a cemetery, the council wants to close the swimming pool as it is unviable and "wasting" tax p
money.

Is not a waste of tax payers money appealing against the Information Commissioner's decision when he said that cctv recording image AND audio in public & private hire vehicles and that Southampton city council has "gone too far"; bear in mind that TWO judges have said it is "unlawful" yet the Tory council brought this policy in, spent money on TWO court cases and now the Labour council is trying to uphold an unpopular TORY policy using public funds. In this city it is irrelevant who you vote it is the CIVIL SERVANTS in the council who really run the council not the people we voted for as they lack backbone!

All those who are supporting the caretaker at the cemetery and those fighting the closure of the pool, did you know that the council are throwing money at the cameras appeals without hesitation? That it could end up going further? When the council tells you there is no money bring up this COSTLY chain of legal action.


Southampton city council, it does not matter which party is in, it is the tail that wags the dog.

On a final note, Councillor Thomas is one of the finest councillors you could have keep up the support; shame his senior collegues lack courage and backbone.

I have a lot of respect for Don Thomas too, you never hear a bad word against him from his local Ward.

I'm worried about borrowing money tbh but it should be looked at seriously as a compromise but people have to USE the pool and make commitments, the pool have to attract classes etc and expand it's income etc. And Payne is right they do need a Group to take over the running of the pool like Red Lodge did. It can be done but it needs to be sustainable as chucking money at something that isn't sustainable isn't wise....

Why don't they apply for Lottery, Sports Relief funds, it is in a deprived area but they have to 'show' that htey are encouraging youngsters and also the older population etc.

We are still colletting signatures for the petition out side Sainsburys Lordshill on a weds and sat between 11am to 1pm, so come and sign it if you want the a chance for the pool to stay open.

Bit fed up of hearing about this bloody pool, if it was used a bit more then it wouldn't be closing down. As it is not used enough then it should be rightly closed down and the money better spent elsewhere.

Yep, close it down and save money. Or at least stop draining money on the few people that obviously use it. How many petitioners use it regularly? Bet not many!

To me it looks like it's gone beyond whether people actually want it to stay open or how many actually use it and is now being used as a political football.

If it's a drain on public finances, then close it. There's no point keeping it open just for the sake of it.

southy wrote:
We are still colletting signatures for the petition out side Sainsburys Lordshill on a weds and sat between 11am to 1pm, so come and sign it if you want the a chance for the pool to stay open.

You will of course let us know how many signatures are collected, although I suppose when agendas are involved, it's not in your best interests to reveal them if they fall below what you are hoping for.

Shoong wrote:
To me it looks like it's gone beyond whether people actually want it to stay open or how many actually use it and is now being used as a political football.

If it's a drain on public finances, then close it. There's no point keeping it open just for the sake of it.

Unless they manage to find a bank that will accept signatures instead of cash, of course.

ToastyTea wrote:
Bit fed up of hearing about this bloody pool, if it was used a bit more then it wouldn't be closing down. As it is not used enough then it should be rightly closed down and the money better spent elsewhere.

Well the easy answer to your problem of being fed up hearing about the pool (well in this case reading about the pool). Is not to read the artical in queston or post about it.

So are they going to be sharing the pool with the digger and buldozers that will be knocking Oaklands down to build a new Sainsburys???????

No didnt think so..................
...

I wonder how much these two Councillors use the pool and contribute to its use? People are not using it or it would not have to close. Everyone signing the petition is not a pool user. I don't want tp pay for the loan - loans do cost money don't they know that?

Might SS wrote:
I wonder how much these two Councillors use the pool and contribute to its use? People are not using it or it would not have to close. Everyone signing the petition is not a pool user. I don't want tp pay for the loan - loans do cost money don't they know that?

It do not matter weather if these two Councillors was using or contributing or not, they was elected to represent the local people people and there needs.
Plus the pool was being used, it was closed down because of repairs that was needed to be done, that should of been done 2 to 3 years ago, but the tory council put back the repairs because they was in talks with sainburys to build a new super store on the school grounds.
And because the work was put back it will now cost more to have it repaired.

southy wrote:

Might SS wrote:
I wonder how much these two Councillors use the pool and contribute to its use? People are not using it or it would not have to close. Everyone signing the petition is not a pool user. I don't want tp pay for the loan - loans do cost money don't they know that?

It do not matter weather if these two Councillors was using or contributing or not, they was elected to represent the local people people and there needs.
Plus the pool was being used, it was closed down because of repairs that was needed to be done, that should of been done 2 to 3 years ago, but the tory council put back the repairs because they was in talks with sainburys to build a new super store on the school grounds.
And because the work was put back it will now cost more to have it repaired.

Signatures are fine - but signatures don't go swimming or pay for it.

If the pool stays open based on a petition rather than the actual usage it requires then all you've done is cause the exact opposite of what you hope to achieve. Public money will be wasted.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Might SS wrote:
I wonder how much these two Councillors use the pool and contribute to its use? People are not using it or it would not have to close. Everyone signing the petition is not a pool user. I don't want tp pay for the loan - loans do cost money don't they know that?

It do not matter weather if these two Councillors was using or contributing or not, they was elected to represent the local people people and there needs.
Plus the pool was being used, it was closed down because of repairs that was needed to be done, that should of been done 2 to 3 years ago, but the tory council put back the repairs because they was in talks with sainburys to build a new super store on the school grounds.
And because the work was put back it will now cost more to have it repaired.

Signatures are fine - but signatures don't go swimming or pay for it.

If the pool stays open based on a petition rather than the actual usage it requires then all you've done is cause the exact opposite of what you hope to achieve. Public money will be wasted.

You don't have a clue how things work do you.

Methinks people are playing Politics with the citizens of Southampton.........

>
Keeping it open is just papering over the cracks. Ultimately, it has to close...........

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Might SS wrote:
I wonder how much these two Councillors use the pool and contribute to its use? People are not using it or it would not have to close. Everyone signing the petition is not a pool user. I don't want tp pay for the loan - loans do cost money don't they know that?

It do not matter weather if these two Councillors was using or contributing or not, they was elected to represent the local people people and there needs.
Plus the pool was being used, it was closed down because of repairs that was needed to be done, that should of been done 2 to 3 years ago, but the tory council put back the repairs because they was in talks with sainburys to build a new super store on the school grounds.
And because the work was put back it will now cost more to have it repaired.

Signatures are fine - but signatures don't go swimming or pay for it.

If the pool stays open based on a petition rather than the actual usage it requires then all you've done is cause the exact opposite of what you hope to achieve. Public money will be wasted.

You don't have a clue how things work do you.

I'll take your flippant and in no way worthy reply as proof that you're just as clueless as myself.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Might SS wrote:
I wonder how much these two Councillors use the pool and contribute to its use? People are not using it or it would not have to close. Everyone signing the petition is not a pool user. I don't want tp pay for the loan - loans do cost money don't they know that?

It do not matter weather if these two Councillors was using or contributing or not, they was elected to represent the local people people and there needs.
Plus the pool was being used, it was closed down because of repairs that was needed to be done, that should of been done 2 to 3 years ago, but the tory council put back the repairs because they was in talks with sainburys to build a new super store on the school grounds.
And because the work was put back it will now cost more to have it repaired.

Signatures are fine - but signatures don't go swimming or pay for it.

If the pool stays open based on a petition rather than the actual usage it requires then all you've done is cause the exact opposite of what you hope to achieve. Public money will be wasted.

You don't have a clue how things work do you.

I'll take your flippant and in no way worthy reply as proof that you're just as clueless as myself.

I will tell you yet again about the idea behind petitions.
You need so many signatures to be able to deputise the council to be able to speak to the councillors in the council chambers and to be able have a debate about it.
With out the number of required signatures the Council can refuse to have a debate or let you have a say in the council chambers.

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Might SS wrote:
I wonder how much these two Councillors use the pool and contribute to its use? People are not using it or it would not have to close. Everyone signing the petition is not a pool user. I don't want tp pay for the loan - loans do cost money don't they know that?

It do not matter weather if these two Councillors was using or contributing or not, they was elected to represent the local people people and there needs.
Plus the pool was being used, it was closed down because of repairs that was needed to be done, that should of been done 2 to 3 years ago, but the tory council put back the repairs because they was in talks with sainburys to build a new super store on the school grounds.
And because the work was put back it will now cost more to have it repaired.

Signatures are fine - but signatures don't go swimming or pay for it.

If the pool stays open based on a petition rather than the actual usage it requires then all you've done is cause the exact opposite of what you hope to achieve. Public money will be wasted.

You don't have a clue how things work do you.

I'll take your flippant and in no way worthy reply as proof that you're just as clueless as myself.

I will tell you yet again about the idea behind petitions.
You need so many signatures to be able to deputise the council to be able to speak to the councillors in the council chambers and to be able have a debate about it.
With out the number of required signatures the Council can refuse to have a debate or let you have a say in the council chambers.

The sad thing is that you pretend you care about Oaklands pool - in reality it's just about politics and point scoring.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Might SS wrote:
I wonder how much these two Councillors use the pool and contribute to its use? People are not using it or it would not have to close. Everyone signing the petition is not a pool user. I don't want tp pay for the loan - loans do cost money don't they know that?

It do not matter weather if these two Councillors was using or contributing or not, they was elected to represent the local people people and there needs.
Plus the pool was being used, it was closed down because of repairs that was needed to be done, that should of been done 2 to 3 years ago, but the tory council put back the repairs because they was in talks with sainburys to build a new super store on the school grounds.
And because the work was put back it will now cost more to have it repaired.

Signatures are fine - but signatures don't go swimming or pay for it.

If the pool stays open based on a petition rather than the actual usage it requires then all you've done is cause the exact opposite of what you hope to achieve. Public money will be wasted.

You don't have a clue how things work do you.

I'll take your flippant and in no way worthy reply as proof that you're just as clueless as myself.

I will tell you yet again about the idea behind petitions.
You need so many signatures to be able to deputise the council to be able to speak to the councillors in the council chambers and to be able have a debate about it.
With out the number of required signatures the Council can refuse to have a debate or let you have a say in the council chambers.

The sad thing is that you pretend you care about Oaklands pool - in reality it's just about politics and point scoring.

What do you expect its all about politics, the whole of life is about politics so get use to that.
You either put money before people or you put people before money.
Now we have had 32 years of pure capitalism which all ways puts money before people, and runs down for privatation any state own services, its not about what is best for the majority its what is best for the few.
And its not a case the money is not there for public services, because it is there and what is needed is a council that will stand up to government and release all the money that is being kept away from councils that is stopping them to keep and create more jobs, which reflect on the economy to start running again and get us out of this slump that been getting deeper for the last 25 years.

I thought Southy & other Pro Pool posters on here would congratulate Hannides suggestion on selling Art we don't ever see to help save this pool & Services & jobs?

loosehead wrote:
I thought Southy & other Pro Pool posters on here would congratulate Hannides suggestion on selling Art we don't ever see to help save this pool & Services & jobs?

Don't sale any art that is a silly idea from Hannides once its sold there no getting back and once the money that has gone you be looking to sale more.
It would be better to lease, hire or rent the art out to other gallerys to show.

Loosehead's total loyalty to his Tory Party is admirable. I am under the impression that he is not life long Tory but one of the recent convert, before that used to be fan of great socialist Tony Benn.

So hardly surprising former sportsman only knows Thatcherite version of Conservatism, which even according to some very prominent leader of Tories is selling family silver (Think he was Ted Heath).

He may have turned his back on Tony Benn, probably because of some disappointment with union at BAT, but at least could learn something from other group of Tories.

Works of Art are not even family silver because in fact many were not paid for out of tax payers money but in fact donated by a very generous man, with legally binding condition that they should not be sold... That's why Hannides and others could not lay their Tory hands on this important heritage trusted in Council's care. Obviously the gran kind hearted doner had brilliant mind, could visualise most nasty version of Conservatives well in advance.

Real problem in Southampton is the power of pen pushers. Doesn't matter which party may be in power these 'Humphries' have become puppet masters and most representatives of the people are made to dance on their strings.

I have the feeling that 'Humphries' decided to close the pool, so have created various statistical figures to suit their desires.

Cllr. Morrell has often blown that ever changing data apart and provided entirely different data, every time he has done it in public the puppets of pen pushers have failed to challenge his figures.

Considering Keith is very experinced professional accountant, makes it even more compelling why our side believe him.

Dictated by pen pushing fat cats in Civic, local NuLabourites are even undermining their national leadership (Why are they not under investigation by NuLabour, which is picking upon our two Councillors committed to expressing the concerns of their constituents thus not giving in to the ductat of Dear Leader and Closet Conservative followers?) Nationally Milliband's mob is very rightly criticising Tories for selling school playing fields and failing to properly finance sports after popularity generated by Olympics and Paralympic. But here under Dear Leader NuLabourites are themselves closing Oaklands Swimming Pool.

If this is not hypocrisy what else may I call it?

loosehead wrote:
I thought Southy & other Pro Pool posters on here would congratulate Hannides suggestion on selling Art we don't ever see to help save this pool & Services & jobs?

I was talking to a friend who happen to be a Tory, with far less arrogance than some of your councillors.

He agreed with me that from your party's point of view, as opposition in Council, it makes absolutely no sense what Hannides is proposing.

Forget the morality of it, start proposing something controversial and so unpopular step, which Tories could not implement because of legal issues, is only going to upset people thus becoming another kiss of death for Royston led group and your party.

In fact when Dear Leader led NuLabour Group keep on finding banana skins themselves, your Tory mates could turn out to be their badly needed saviours.

From an independent point of view Tories out performed NuLabourites in last two Council meetings. But this time when they are likely to be in problems with their two principled councillors and core voters from Labour area, I can't imagine logic behind Tory Group allowing Hannides to hang whole lot including himself in one single go.

You should have played chess than rugby!!!

southy wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:
Bit fed up of hearing about this bloody pool, if it was used a bit more then it wouldn't be closing down. As it is not used enough then it should be rightly closed down and the money better spent elsewhere.

Well the easy answer to your problem of being fed up hearing about the pool (well in this case reading about the pool). Is not to read the artical in queston or post about it.

Congratulations Peter. Best response. I will buy you drink next time we meet.

By the way unless the procedure has changed over the years, having X number of signatures on petition should not be requirement for delegation to the Council.

Please check it out to make sure, bfore somebody picks it. Because my knowledge on this subject is very old.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:
Bit fed up of hearing about this bloody pool, if it was used a bit more then it wouldn't be closing down. As it is not used enough then it should be rightly closed down and the money better spent elsewhere.

Well the easy answer to your problem of being fed up hearing about the pool (well in this case reading about the pool). Is not to read the artical in queston or post about it.

Congratulations Peter. Best response. I will buy you drink next time we meet.

By the way unless the procedure has changed over the years, having X number of signatures on petition should not be requirement for delegation to the Council.

Please check it out to make sure, bfore somebody picks it. Because my knowledge on this subject is very old.

Its all ways have been Paramjit just that Labour in the pass, have by pass the petitions and allowed people to speak in the chambers, but having those signatures behind you is a back up if the council decides to refuse.

nedscrumpo wrote:
So how does borrowing money "not cost a penny?"

they are Labour politicians, so what do you expect?

southy wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:
Bit fed up of hearing about this bloody pool, if it was used a bit more then it wouldn't be closing down. As it is not used enough then it should be rightly closed down and the money better spent elsewhere.

Well the easy answer to your problem of being fed up hearing about the pool (well in this case reading about the pool). Is not to read the artical in queston or post about it.

Congratulations Peter. Best response. I will buy you drink next time we meet.

By the way unless the procedure has changed over the years, having X number of signatures on petition should not be requirement for delegation to the Council.

Please check it out to make sure, bfore somebody picks it. Because my knowledge on this subject is very old.

Its all ways have been Paramjit just that Labour in the pass, have by pass the petitions and allowed people to speak in the chambers, but having those signatures behind you is a back up if the council decides to refuse.

This is the position as taked from the council website.

"PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: -

Representations: -
At the discretion of the Mayor, members of the public may address the Council on any report included on the agenda in which they have a relevant interest.

Petitions: -
Any Councillor may present a petition, on behalf of the signatories, about issues relating to Southampton. If you have such a petition you need to ask a Councillor to present it to the meeting.

The following opportunities also exist for the public to raise matters at Council meetings, but seven clear days’ notice must be given before the meeting: -

Deputations: -
A deputation of up to three people can apply to address the Council. A deputation may include the presentation of a petition."


So, it seems you do NOT need a petition to make a deputation to the council

The position is still as Paramjit outlined above.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

loosehead wrote:
I thought Southy & other Pro Pool posters on here would congratulate Hannides suggestion on selling Art we don't ever see to help save this pool & Services & jobs?

I was talking to a friend who happen to be a Tory, with far less arrogance than some of your councillors.

He agreed with me that from your party's point of view, as opposition in Council, it makes absolutely no sense what Hannides is proposing.

Forget the morality of it, start proposing something controversial and so unpopular step, which Tories could not implement because of legal issues, is only going to upset people thus becoming another kiss of death for Royston led group and your party.

In fact when Dear Leader led NuLabour Group keep on finding banana skins themselves, your Tory mates could turn out to be their badly needed saviours.

From an independent point of view Tories out performed NuLabourites in last two Council meetings. But this time when they are likely to be in problems with their two principled councillors and core voters from Labour area, I can't imagine logic behind Tory Group allowing Hannides to hang whole lot including himself in one single go.

You should have played chess than rugby!!!

You should read my posts more closely before gaining an opinion of me.
I supported Benn & all the NO campaign in the Referendum & I hated that MORON Ted Heath for taking us in.
As for Maggie I supported her views but new that because of the damage the unions were doing each & every one of us would suffer if she got in so I voted against her but she was elected stuck to her word so I voted for her & the Tory party from then on.
Labour put's up tax on wages,Alcohol & most things most working class people do.
After the bombings then the riots instead of clamping down on the despots they took a soft option & wanted a soft option on the rioters.
If a UK citizen takes up arms against her majesty's forces that's treason yet we find British citizens fighting for the Taliban & then Cheryl Blair defends them?
Sorry Paramjit Labour old & new have got it so wrong so many times I could never vote for them.
The selling of Art that 99% of this city never sees or wants to see to keep open leisure facilities & to save jobs & keep council tax down I think is a great idea or shall we just do a June Bridle & continuously raise tax?

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

loosehead wrote:
I thought Southy & other Pro Pool posters on here would congratulate Hannides suggestion on selling Art we don't ever see to help save this pool & Services & jobs?

I was talking to a friend who happen to be a Tory, with far less arrogance than some of your councillors.

He agreed with me that from your party's point of view, as opposition in Council, it makes absolutely no sense what Hannides is proposing.

Forget the morality of it, start proposing something controversial and so unpopular step, which Tories could not implement because of legal issues, is only going to upset people thus becoming another kiss of death for Royston led group and your party.

In fact when Dear Leader led NuLabour Group keep on finding banana skins themselves, your Tory mates could turn out to be their badly needed saviours.

From an independent point of view Tories out performed NuLabourites in last two Council meetings. But this time when they are likely to be in problems with their two principled councillors and core voters from Labour area, I can't imagine logic behind Tory Group allowing Hannides to hang whole lot including himself in one single go.

You should have played chess than rugby!!!

Chess? told you. you don't know me?
Went to Bournemouth on a night out with my friend & met his girlfriend who lived in Boscombe.
when we dropped her off her family invited us in for little while her brother who was Bournemouth Chess champion offered my friend to a game of Chess he ( Friend) was losing I showed him how to get Stalemate the brother said "How can someone as thick looking as you play chess" I offered him a game & trounced him we weren't welcome after that so we left so yes I can play chess thank you

I totally misread the headline. I thought it said 'Loon will save the pool' Southy almost had some credit.

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

ToastyTea wrote:
Bit fed up of hearing about this bloody pool, if it was used a bit more then it wouldn't be closing down. As it is not used enough then it should be rightly closed down and the money better spent elsewhere.

Well the easy answer to your problem of being fed up hearing about the pool (well in this case reading about the pool). Is not to read the artical in queston or post about it.

Congratulations Peter. Best response. I will buy you drink next time we meet.

By the way unless the procedure has changed over the years, having X number of signatures on petition should not be requirement for delegation to the Council.

Please check it out to make sure, bfore somebody picks it. Because my knowledge on this subject is very old.

Its all ways have been Paramjit just that Labour in the pass, have by pass the petitions and allowed people to speak in the chambers, but having those signatures behind you is a back up if the council decides to refuse.

This is the position as taked from the council website.

"PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: -

Representations: -
At the discretion of the Mayor, members of the public may address the Council on any report included on the agenda in which they have a relevant interest.

Petitions: -
Any Councillor may present a petition, on behalf of the signatories, about issues relating to Southampton. If you have such a petition you need to ask a Councillor to present it to the meeting.

The following opportunities also exist for the public to raise matters at Council meetings, but seven clear days’ notice must be given before the meeting: -

Deputations: -
A deputation of up to three people can apply to address the Council. A deputation may include the presentation of a petition."


So, it seems you do NOT need a petition to make a deputation to the council

The position is still as Paramjit outlined above.

At the discretion of the Mayor, members of the public may address the Council on any report included on the agenda in which they have a relevant interest.

Key word "discretion" he can say nay or aye, but can not refuse a petition that as the require number of signatures.

Petitions handed to a councillor has no fix number, and again it will come down to the discretion of that councillor.
A Deputation of upto 3 may have 7mins max (between them), to talk to the council, which will require set number of signatures if a mayor has refused or there is no councillors willing to take up the case.
The baic same rules applys in the House of Commons. just the set number of signatures is a lot higher.

Southy, are you sure that unelected ordinary citizens like us can address House of Commons if backed with a petition signed by X number of people? Or I may not be understanding exactly what you have stated. Because I have the feeling you may be misunderstanding something else.

Sticking to Southampton Council. I must admit that I am not expert on its procedures or standing orders or whatever they call those things, BUT you may find that there is no such thing as minimum number of signatures required for a petition.

Please check the facts before your fans on this site start picking holes in your comment. I am concerned because that only causes distraction from the basic point you may be trying to make.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Southy, are you sure that unelected ordinary citizens like us can address House of Commons if backed with a petition signed by X number of people? Or I may not be understanding exactly what you have stated. Because I have the feeling you may be misunderstanding something else.

Sticking to Southampton Council. I must admit that I am not expert on its procedures or standing orders or whatever they call those things, BUT you may find that there is no such thing as minimum number of signatures required for a petition.

Please check the facts before your fans on this site start picking holes in your comment. I am concerned because that only causes distraction from the basic point you may be trying to make.

Yes they can Paramjit or it would be totally pointless to have petitions, all you would need to do is ask and you would able to, the idea behind petitions is for a Mayor or speaker to balance the mood of the people and not be able to bush it to one side and say not enough people are interested. The number required is 1,500 Paramjit.
But Southampton is pretty good they do not often refuse.

NotoNwo wrote:
The council has NO MONEY to maintain a caretaker at a cemetery, the council wants to close the swimming pool as it is unviable and "wasting" tax p
money.

Is not a waste of tax payers money appealing against the Information Commissioner's decision when he said that cctv recording image AND audio in public & private hire vehicles and that Southampton city council has "gone too far"; bear in mind that TWO judges have said it is "unlawful" yet the Tory council brought this policy in, spent money on TWO court cases and now the Labour council is trying to uphold an unpopular TORY policy using public funds. In this city it is irrelevant who you vote it is the CIVIL SERVANTS in the council who really run the council not the people we voted for as they lack backbone!

All those who are supporting the caretaker at the cemetery and those fighting the closure of the pool, did you know that the council are throwing money at the cameras appeals without hesitation? That it could end up going further? When the council tells you there is no money bring up this COSTLY chain of legal action.


Southampton city council, it does not matter which party is in, it is the tail that wags the dog.

On a final note, Councillor Thomas is one of the finest councillors you could have keep up the support; shame his senior collegues lack courage and backbone.

NotoNwo
Cameras Appeals??? its not a matter they cant afford for a cemeteries superintendant, they just wanted an excuse to get their hands on The Lodge....big house with massive garden!
Quite agree with it doesnt matter who is in power, theyre all full of it! About time they all got a backbone. Supporting previous decisions that strongly, should make us all realise and vote with our feet at next elections!! I For one would like to see an independant party that will actually listen to the people of southampton and respond to our needs instead of their own...but thats not ever going to happen, too many sit moaning but dont see it through to make the difference!

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Loosehead's total loyalty to his Tory Party is admirable. I am under the impression that he is not life long Tory but one of the recent convert, before that used to be fan of great socialist Tony Benn.

So hardly surprising former sportsman only knows Thatcherite version of Conservatism, which even according to some very prominent leader of Tories is selling family silver (Think he was Ted Heath).

He may have turned his back on Tony Benn, probably because of some disappointment with union at BAT, but at least could learn something from other group of Tories.

Works of Art are not even family silver because in fact many were not paid for out of tax payers money but in fact donated by a very generous man, with legally binding condition that they should not be sold... That's why Hannides and others could not lay their Tory hands on this important heritage trusted in Council's care. Obviously the gran kind hearted doner had brilliant mind, could visualise most nasty version of Conservatives well in advance.

Real problem in Southampton is the power of pen pushers. Doesn't matter which party may be in power these 'Humphries' have become puppet masters and most representatives of the people are made to dance on their strings.

I have the feeling that 'Humphries' decided to close the pool, so have created various statistical figures to suit their desires.

Cllr. Morrell has often blown that ever changing data apart and provided entirely different data, every time he has done it in public the puppets of pen pushers have failed to challenge his figures.

Considering Keith is very experinced professional accountant, makes it even more compelling why our side believe him.

Dictated by pen pushing fat cats in Civic, local NuLabourites are even undermining their national leadership (Why are they not under investigation by NuLabour, which is picking upon our two Councillors committed to expressing the concerns of their constituents thus not giving in to the ductat of Dear Leader and Closet Conservative followers?) Nationally Milliband's mob is very rightly criticising Tories for selling school playing fields and failing to properly finance sports after popularity generated by Olympics and Paralympic. But here under Dear Leader NuLabourites are themselves closing Oaklands Swimming Pool.

If this is not hypocrisy what else may I call it?

yes clueless,overpaid pen pushers, that have no idea on 'the real world' Hypocrites!!

NotoNwo wrote:
The council has NO MONEY to maintain a caretaker at a cemetery, the council wants to close the swimming pool as it is unviable and "wasting" tax p
money.

Is not a waste of tax payers money appealing against the Information Commissioner's decision when he said that cctv recording image AND audio in public & private hire vehicles and that Southampton city council has "gone too far"; bear in mind that TWO judges have said it is "unlawful" yet the Tory council brought this policy in, spent money on TWO court cases and now the Labour council is trying to uphold an unpopular TORY policy using public funds. In this city it is irrelevant who you vote it is the CIVIL SERVANTS in the council who really run the council not the people we voted for as they lack backbone!

All those who are supporting the caretaker at the cemetery and those fighting the closure of the pool, did you know that the council are throwing money at the cameras appeals without hesitation? That it could end up going further? When the council tells you there is no money bring up this COSTLY chain of legal action.


Southampton city council, it does not matter which party is in, it is the tail that wags the dog.

On a final note, Councillor Thomas is one of the finest councillors you could have keep up the support; shame his senior collegues lack courage and backbone.

Are you having a Laugh?
Cllr Thomas is one of the finest councillors?
I remember his statement about the local yobs trying to stop emergency Helicopters landing on the helicopter pad at 5acres " this is where the youth play & the Helicopters shouldn't land there" that pad had been in use way before most of the toe rags were born.
he also said" Lordshill is becoming the forgotten estate & with the loss of this bus service people will have no bus service"?
Has he stood outside Lordshill Library lately?
he also promised the voters that if the Tories got in they would close Oaklands swimming pool did he mention that if it closed it would be demolished & a new one built? NO he didn't & exactly what has his party done?
Thomas & Morrel have no choice but to support the Save Our Pool Campaign or they will be voted out

Correct as usual Loosehead.

aldermoorboy wrote:
Correct as usual Loosehead.

Did you hear the TUC?
They used this city as a test bed to see by striking if they could remove the Tory council & they think it worked so now they're telling the elected government do as we say or we strike?
Who the Hell voted in the Unions to Government didn't the TUSC fail?