General Chat

OFITG - the posting you quote -

"Another good thread hijacked so I am out of here"

where exactly does it say YOU hijacked the thread :-S


and where did Errol say you hijacked the thread?

Sorry, Renes. I think you are laying bait. If I list details I know exactly what will happen to my post. So will decline your kind invitation and let you make up your own mind on evidence of thread.

Have re-read thread carefully this morning. There are some excellent posts and interesting opinions. And plenty of same old same old also. It is the two who decided to flounce off when I made my posts that have really upset me. Not that they flounced off, but the disrespectful way they did it.

back to the subject in hand :-D

Just as a matter of interest, I am all for people of whatever age to stand up for themselves and their opionion to be counted, however having read through this thread I am asking myself, who empties the protestors bins? Would they not complain if they fell down a pot hole in the pavement on their way home one evening from a protest meeting and couldn't see it in the dark as there was no street lights, so who do they expect to contribute to the system that will pay for their medical treatment?

As for the wanting the opinion of the author of this thread I thought she gave her opinion in her OP but maybe thats just me ;-)

Sorry John - but I have no idea what "laying bait" means but I do understand your comment of

"Only reason I came on this thread was because I was so fed up of seeing post after post having a go at the Opening Poster and not the subject matter."

Which is blatantly not so ...

I too read the thread ... And saw the opening posters name mentioned a couple of times - from memory by Cynthia - who wondered what the OP view was and Marie Celeste .. who it seemed misread the OP .... Confusing the quote from the article with the poster comments - i think ¿ - neither of whom were and I quote " having a go "

This was a good OP ... And a good thread ........

Please retract you comment .. As I feel it it antagonistic, and untrue ...

This thread is another one full of annoying ambiguity - no wonder some have got annoyed.

First we have the OP leaving us to decide whether they support a single person paying less or no council tax or do they find that a Lien or Charge on a property ( to be collected on sale or death) is out of order.

Many of us are home owners or children of homeowners and are well aware of how good local councils are in doing this (elderly care).

Secondly, we have someone complaining of the thread being highjacked, naturally the author of the previous posts assumes this is him, but the complainant denies this - so why doesn't the complainant now give us an indication of who did do the highjacking.

So then now lets get back to the issue - who do we agree is in the right, the lady not paying her taxes or the council, working on behalf of the ratepayers, putting a Lien on her property?

I have reported the post ...

Having rechecked again ...
The first mention of the OP was on page three . ( 3 ). ... Was indeed by Cynthia and Marie Celeste ..... Neither derogatory ... - and i will not have it said otherwise -

In fact the general census of opinion was ...It was a good post...
Worded in such a way to promote good discussion ....

which it did up to a certain point .....

And that certain point was when 'Highjacking' was mentioned. Prior to that it had been a very interesting discussion.

If I answer a leading question like Renes has asked, I get reported. If I don't answer, I get reported. But at least there is little chance of report being upheld. Actually rolling OFL.

Personally, I am fed up of being baited. And I am sure one or two others are really fed up too. Why cannot people stick to the millions of threads where people they actually respect contribute? And ignore posters who they have no respect at all for?

My personal opinion is that most posters assumed CupCakes was pro this protestor. So one or two decided to take the side of the Council, and they do not normally do that in their posts. Posters who normally have a real go at the "powers that be" suddenly become so pro Norfolk Council that I felt they must work there. My feeling is that some of the opposition to this pensioner was veiled opposition to CupCakes.

I am pro the pensioner protestor because I had a lot of respect for my old Vicar in Northants when he took on the Council. I have tried to do it myself by taking an appeal against a speeding fine to as high a level as I could. Of course, we lose even though our moral case (and even legal case) may be correct. You just cannot beat the system, but you can have a bit of fun challenging the pompous ones.

I have no problem at all with any poster who says this lady should pay up like everyone else and she should dip into her savings and play the system or whatever. I am certain that Jax (as an example) holds that view sincerely and I respect her opinion very much on this topic as on many others. I don't agree, but I know it is a genuine opinion as is mine.

As one of life's rebels myself, I much admire this lady for pushing them in the way she has. She has hardly any money and resources, they have loads. And I would hope my opinion would also be respected without all this flouncing off the thread.

The only two posters who were posting a lot at that particular time were myself and Rose. I do not believe for a moment OFITG and eRRolSheep were referring to Rose as a hijacker :-)

John are you able to ever give a direct opinion in less than 50 words,long drawn out monologues are seen as hijacking--------.just stick to the basics.

also I belive CC from the OP finds it disgraceful,,,,,no payments will have to be made while other pensioners are making payments due some which they can ill afford and scrimping along with no savings at all without being taken to court.-again.

so enlighten us John - in which posting has Errol accused you of hijacking this thread cos I've just gone through it again and can't find it

AnnC,,,as John entered from the left it was a forgone conclusion the thread would be hijacked. and needed no pointers who the un-named person would be :-D :-D as described above,,,,, ;-).

John, I am also FOR pensioner protest, and NON pensioner protest done effectively and with due 'integrity' ( which I don't feel is the case here as the lady in question accepted someone else's money to pay her last debt) ...but i am also FOR, NOT being taken for a mug!

I added my opinions and arguments in good faith John, on the TOPIC not the OP ( and then only after some thought ) .

Kay

I think you have summed up perfectly, some readers point of view

The monologue concerning. -- the following
One book I read about management was by Robert Townsend, who made such a success of Avis. Townsend, Robert L. (1970). Up the Organization; How to Stop the Corporation from Stifling People and Strangling. New York: Alfred A. Knop .......

A long half page post .... .. Instantly followed by a another. .. Of point post .....

does seem like ......... (What you said Kay .. Beginning with H ....)

I better not use the word coz I is cowardly .......

The woman should still pay the amount she owes.

I personally read the OP as she shouldn't.

Really couldn't care less whether I misread the OP's view as she hasn't had the courtesy to return and acknowledge replies.

Hi John does your Vicar friend live in a Vicarage? Now I wouldnt support your friend it has nothing to do with him being your friend or that you support him, I ( me) just think as a Vicar he is a respected member of the community and this isnt an example I would expect him to be setting! Also local councils do not or most do not have wads of cash most are run on a very tight budget ask anyone on here who works for a local council and ask them when they last had a pay rise? Again I will ask who do the Vicar and the OAP think pay for the services that local councils provide and no doubt they use? And why do they think they shouldnt have to contribute when eveyone else has to? That question isn't directed at you John personaly because as you say like me you pay council tax yes I wish it was lower but no doubt there is some smart arse in my local community that thinks they shouldnt have to pay and has been taken to court again all generates cost to the honest abiding members of the comminity like myself.

What I will apologise for is writing posts that were too long and off topic. I am sorry for that.

And, yes, I do know how difficult it is to be employed by a local authority at present. Someone very close to me is employed in an admin job in an LEA and is being snowed under at present and has had no real increase for about 5 years and none on cards.

And I think the situation in 2005 when Rev Alfred Ridley protested (he was aged 71 at the time) was very different. Rates had been going up by a fantastic amount for years and years and I well remember on our new estate that 3 tree experts came out to tell us what native trees to plant and where. No problems with one tree expert, or better still a couple who are on contract without all the expensive salary add-ons. But three!!! In South Northamptonshire!! And the rubbish wasn't collected very well in those days either. And there were thousands of potholes then. And no grit in winter.

Sorry, another long one. I must be a bit old-fashioned. I think I would always sympathise with somebody in later years who is past working age and has worked really hard all their lives to earn, to save and make a difference. I am upset if any authority treats them with a lack of respect, and think it is their right to lower their living standards, their life savings and try and push them out of their family home.

Edit. Hayley. Vicar friend had lived in nice Vicarages with smalllish salary but quite a good standard of living for 40+ years. At 71 in 2005, he was retired and living in a small modern house with far less disposable income that he had previously enjoyed. And pips were being squeezed, and he was not happy to be paying a higher increase in rates than his increase in pension. And you will see from press cuttings at time, that almost everybody was on his side.

John in response to you being

" upset if any authority treats them with a lack of respect, and think it is their right to lower their living standards, their life savings and try and push them out of their family home. "

This lady is showing a lack of respect for the rules the rest of us follow, however unwillingly. We all have to pay our bills or suffer the consequences...........and, as Hayley has said already, it will cost everyone else more to cover the legal fees .

She chose not to pay, has no need to lower her standard of living, her savings will adequately cover her CT charges and is not going to be pushed out of her family home.

She could always take a lodger / new husband...it's what many elderly single women had to do in the past to avoid the workhouse.......


ok ok no I'm not serious lol... well not entirely, however it may well be something I have to do in the future if I wish to keep my home (the lodger, not the husband !) and be able to pay council tax.

I think anyone who has sympathy or thinks her 'cause' is fair and justified, should get out there with her and protest...if they feel so strongly. Get the Mail onside and make it a crusade ;-) ( but don't be too surprised if financially stretched couplesand single people under pension age who have to pay the full amount call them 'benefit scroungers' :-) )

trees and vicars - off post?!! definitely

I am one of those couples with a child still at home, is paid by the local authority, has had no pay rise for 3 years, seen all our household bills rise year by year, yet still manages to pay the bills.

My sympathies lie elsewhere .....if that makes me uncaring, then so be it :-| :-D