Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on April 27, 2017 at 17:12

I have read through many of the readers' comments, and it is rather upsetting to see how people view us. Residents have been judged as being some sorts of 'low lifes' because of the photographs.  Apart from Great Arthur House being finally refurbished with new windows, even though the photographs do not show it in a flattering light, it is still terrible that the rest of the Estate continues to be badly neglected with no signs of dates for repairs and repainting etc in sight, despite being promised this would happen by the City.  I was unable to attend the recent Residents' Drop in Session.  Does anyone who attended know of any progress on these urgent issues?  I object to being labelled in such a bad way because of neglect by the City!  Its shameful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nick Lee on April 27, 2017 at 18:05

I rather think that receiving criticism from 'A Daily Mail Reader' is something of a compliment.

I think also that the people who habituate the comments sections are often a bit sad and may well go on to being a 'Troll'. I find for example that even in the Guardian(!) some of the stuff people post is quite nasty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on April 27, 2017 at 20:16

Yes, many were nasty comments.  I have never read the Guardian's comments, so don't know about that.  I do read the Daily Mail, and the comments' sections, and certainly don't take any unpleasant ones as a 'compliment'.  I do notice that many people don't post under their real names, and I think if you don't do that then what's the point in  posting?   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on April 29, 2017 at 20:09

You don't have to read the article, but just look at the pictures!

Christo said:

I don't read any of the main stream press of watch main stream news channels

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/who-owns-the-uk-media

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hussain on June 5, 2017 at 23:34

Daily Mail!

"Golden Lane in the Barbican", then it "used to be part of Cripplegate" their reporters need correct information, Golden Lane is in the Barbican area of the City, it falls within the Cripplegate Ward. 

Blame the historic and continuing neglect on the undemocratic business nominated councillors who have a special allegiance to maintaining the Barbican estate areas, and ensuring that the Golden Lane Estate resembles how they wish to implement Conservative policies.  

With democracy we have a vote, next time we need to deselect all councillors who do not show their political affiliations, and especially those who continue to vote against Golden Lane investment programmes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on June 6, 2017 at 1:33

If you believe in  democracy then who is 'we' who 'needs' to deselect all councillors who do not show their political affiliations?  Anyone who stands for a councillor position are legally entitled to stand as an independent, and why should that be a problem?  After all, they are councillors, not MPs.  Do you mean that you would disallow anyone who claims to be a Conservative, for example?  That is hardly democratic. 

Hussain said:

Daily Mail!

"Golden Lane in the Barbican", then it "used to be part of Cripplegate" their reporters need correct information, Golden Lane is in the Barbican area of the City, it falls within the Cripplegate Ward. 

Blame the historic and continuing neglect on the undemocratic business nominated councillors who have a special allegiance to maintaining the Barbican estate areas, and ensuring that the Golden Lane Estate resembles how they wish to implement Conservative policies.  

With democracy we have a vote, next time we need to deselect all councillors who do not show their political affiliations, and especially those who continue to vote against Golden Lane investment programmes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hussain on June 6, 2017 at 17:02

Its a problem because certain councillors, especially the business majority vote, who claim to be independent, are in fact not independent. They have shown through their voting patterns to disinvest in Golden Lane Estate, to vote for Zero social housing at the ex YMCA building, to vote for ZERO social housing at Bernard Morgan House. If other Councils within the UK can build social housing within their boundaries, why cannot the City? The main reason is because they do not want social housing to upset the business vote, they do not want any social responsibilities which is why many social services are being parcelled out to neighbouring boroughs.

Why does the City not parcel out its business functions to neighbouring boroughs?

The City vote is controlled by business, businesses in the main tend to be Conservative voting.

Only the bravest councillors with true social values, with true affiliations to their communities, declare their political affiliations. If the so called independents are truly independents ask them which political party they will be voting for in the general election.

AND if they want to remain independent at the next Common Council election, I want them to tell me in detail why they claim to be independent, I want to know their views on each policy area, what they voted for and against, then it would become apparent that their voting pattern is not one of any independent but other.

Do you really believe that the City is truly independent in its voting? Certainly not.

The Labour councillors have already shown to be engaging actively within the City, ensuring changers for the betterment of all within the City.

• ▶ Reply