Q. When is an Independent not an Independent?

A. When he’s teamed up with a Lib-Dem!

The so called Independent candidate in St Luke’s has joined forces with last year’s Lib Dem candidate for St Luke’s and SKIPP sympathiser. The stated object to get rid of the sitting ward Cllr Anna Waite.

Whilst I am sure Cllr Longley will disown this collusion, it would not be the first time he has done this. In 2006 the LibDems colluded with an independent and quite probably UKIP and Labour too. This collusion was confirmed to me by Mike Grimwade (LibDem) who said that he disliked the collusion that had taken place and hoped I would not hold it against him!

Advertisements

26 responses to “Q. When is an Independent not an Independent?

  1. Not sure who wrote the article above but it was poorly written. Yes, I am supporting Paul Van Looy as candidate for St. Lukes Ward. This is what coalition means. Joining forces to eliminate the bad and the greedy. Anna Waite wanted to concrete over the Saxon King’s grave and then, when defeated by Camp Bling group, has the audacity to be photographed at the monument to the grave! The woman has no principles and having crossed swords with her on a number of ocassions, I truly hope she is kicked out in May. Paul is a local St. Lukes resident and cares about the Ward unlike Anna waite who will do anything to gain recognition and get her photo in the local papers. We need Councillors who are dedicated to producing a Southend that the residents want and NOT a Southend created by property speculators and corrupt officials.

    Brian Ayling

  2. ‘Anna Waite wanted to concrete over the Saxon King’s grave and then, when defeated by Camp Bling group, has the audacity to be photographed at the monument to the grave! ‘

    How do you imagine yourself to have better knowledge of what Mrs Waite did or didn’t want that she herself does? I’d like to know about your experience of crossing swords with her because I hope your not just another example of a spiteful failure who didn’t get his own way!

    Seriously Anna Waite has done an awful lot for this town, far more than you or any independant candidate ever has or will. You may not like some of what she’s done, but mostly you just seem to be making gunsubstantiated attacks based on little more than your own irrational anger.

    For example do you have any evidence that town centre officials are corrupt? If so please adduce it, if not how about you keep your delusions and fantasies to yourself before you get into a libel dispute.

    Oh and by the way, ‘Paul’ is not a st lukes local, so you can stop with that little deciet right away. The pair of you seem very well suited to each other, his leaflets also being an equal mix fantasy and bile.

  3. Richard,

    gunsustantiated (sic)! This is not yet Libya but your comments do deserve a reply. If I had evidence of corruption, it would be in the public domain by now but “corrupt” can mean many things and the total lack of respect for the wishes of the residents is one form. I do not suffer from delusions or fantasies but I do listen to the residents and as for being a failure? I am happy with my life.

    I do not intend to reply to any more of these blogs as it is all a bit silly. Let’s wait and see what the residents say in May.

  4. ‘gunsustantiated (sic)! This is not yet Libya’

    It was a typo, but I rather expect you knew that. If you want to be a pedant then [sic] should follow an accurate repetition of the misspelling, you’ve actually made a mistake of your own. Really though who cares.

    So council officials aren’t corrupt in the usual sense of the word, but they’re “corrupt” because they listen to elected politicians rather than going behind their back to do what you’ve decided the residents ‘all’ want. So they’re not really corrupt at all are they? Sounds like you’re backpedalling.

    How are you so sure they don’t listen to residents anyway? We have a mechanism to work out what residents want, called elections. Tell me which ward do you represent? what vote share did you get when last you stood? Oh but you listen to ALL the residents don’t you, you represent the true sentiment of the town! Please.

    You know I think its mighty wrong of people like you to go around refering to hard working councillors as the ‘bad and the greedy’;, to ascribe twisted motives to people that you cannot possibly back u;, to state that she has ‘no principles’; to allege that council officials are corrupt without a SHRED of evidence for any of it.

    Thats why I think your deluded, because I’m polite and the alternative is that your a liar.

    And when asked to justify your views you say your not replying any more because its all ‘a bit silly’. The only thing you’re listening to is an echo chamber.

  5. I am no fan of Anna Waite, but at least I know what she stands for. The independents enjoy similar campaigns styles to the Liberal Democrats in that they are all things to all men – an irresponsible and ultimately dishonest position.

    Like us or loathe us, the Labour Party in Southend has a manifesto. Whilst it may be an attractive soundbite to denounce political affiliation in local elections, when independents vote three ways (for, against, and abstention) on many issues the net result is no progress. With the two main parties you know what you are getting, and we vote with the backing of conviction.

    The independent literature I have seen bears the hallmark of organisation – so much for independence. Putting out identical calling cards and forming a group with a leader belies their stated description. I suspect the reality is is that their egos where frustrated by mainstream and sensible parties.

    Whatever, Anne Jones (Labour) versus Anna Waite (Conservative) is an argument we all understand.

  6. Why does being supported by an EX LibDem candidate mean an Independent candidate becomes a”so called” Independent & is guilty of collusion ? Are you saying that Mr Ayling cannot choose who to vote for this time, just because he stood as a LibDem last year? How does this mean he is any less independent; he is not in any way in coalition with the LibDems unlike the Conservative Party nationally.
    As to Mr Van Looy’s living in St Lukes Ward or not, if he does not then he should not say he does. However I do know that he lived in Cokefield Road which is in the ward for many years and he therefore does know the problems & issues facing the ward better than someone who doesn’t even live in the town let alone the ward. Isn’t it about time the candidates stopped the petty sniping and started debating the real issues?

  7. Brian Ayling wrote:

    “Yes, I am supporting Paul Van Looy as candidate for St. Lukes Ward. This is what coalition means.”

    Elsie Said

    “How does this mean he is any less independent; he is not in any way in coalition with the LibDems”

    So are they in coalition or not? It’s hard to be independent of party politics when your aligning yourself with a party politician. To be honest I think part of the problem is that independent seems to be given all manner of different meanings depending on what is convenient at the time. Afterall the independents have a group, a leader who draws a leaders salary, and their literature is produced centrally.

    The only difference between the independent party and any other is that when the former promise something they have no way of getting it delivered since none of them can agree on anything.

    How does having lived in an area a few years ago give someone such an insight into the travails of its residents? Have we changed our towns names to Royston Vasey or something?

    My understanding is that the independant, labour and conservative candidates all live in wards neighbouring St Luke’s and beyond that arguing who has the greater claim to localness is feintly ridiculous. Yet one of those candidates seems to mention it on just about every piece of literature he sends out. I think its dishonest.

    Where does ‘paul’ live now, and where did he live before that? If you know I’d be interested to find out? I assume its not a secret!

    ‘Isn’t it about time the candidates stopped the petty sniping and started debating the real issues?’

    Sure, point me to where I can find ‘Paul’ debating the real issues? Because ranting, angry verbiage and petty sniping seems to be pretty much his modus operandi.

  8. Brian Ayling

    I was not going to respond to the blogs on this website…but….I will:

    Richard. Do not call me a liar. I do not lie. My name and address and telephone number is in the public domain. You are hidden behind a possible fictitious name on this dubious website. Be a man and face me, anytime, anywhere.

    Elsie. You are so correct in most things you say.

    Julian. Your comments reference both the Independents and the Lib Dems are disgraceful, especially when it was your party that almost bankrupted the UK and allowed so many disgraceful decisions to be made by the new Labour Parliament.

    The difference bewteen the Independents and the other Party’s is the fact that no “Whip” exists and consequently, we may get a balanced administration.

    Whatever you or I say, May 5th will be the voice of the residents deciding exactly what our future will be. It will be interesting.

  9. Brian,

    “The difference bewteen the Independents and the other Party’s is the fact that no “Whip” exists and consequently, we may get a balanced administration.”

    The Tories have no whip either. So does that mean that there is no difference? or are you going to try again? I am genuinely SHOCKED that someone involved in local politics would not know this.

    You do now though – so you can make sure that Paul doesn;t put anything in his leaflets that would suggest otherwise right?

    In your very first post here you called Cllr Waite;

    1)‘bad & greedy’
    2) Stated she wanted to concrete over the saxon king
    3) Stated she has no principles
    4) Claimed to have crossed swords with her many times (I asked for details!)
    5) That ‘Paul’ was a St. Lukes Resident
    6) Stated that Anna Waite doesn’t care about her ward
    7) Stated the Cllr Waite will do anything to gain recognition and get her photo in the local papers.
    8) Strongly implied that Cllr Wait was dedicated to a town created by property speculators and corrupt officials.

    But you get upset because you (mistakenly) think someone called you a liar? Talk about someone who can give it but cannot take it!

    Now I never actually called you a liar, but try to justify/explain all of those slurs you kicked this thread off with. Of course the reality is that you can’t; some of them are demonstrably false, most of them just unsupported, hateful twaddle made up by you and your friends. Unless of course your psychic and have some special insight into Mrs Wait’s brain?

    ‘Be a man and face me, anytime, anywhere.’ What is that? Grow up and stop living up to the stereotypical angry old man in his 60’s who is getting everything wrong and doesn’t like it image. It’s pathetic.

    If you want me to respect you and your party then start acting with a lot more decorum. It is not OK to go around spreading your increasingly unpopular hatred and justifying it with baseless smears.

  10. Actually Brian, let me just ask what are your / ‘Pauls’ policies for St. Luke’s and the town, going forward I mean?

    Nice easy question!

  11. Brian Ayling

    Richard,

    The “meet me any time statement” was simply to have a discussion regarding local politics. It was not an invitation to a dual. First you did call me a liar and now “pathetic” so maybe I will withdraw my invitation to meet. I can substantiate everything I say but I realise any intelligent debate with you would be a total waste of time. My policies for the town:
    1. To have due respect for the wishes of the residents.
    2. To restore the pride in being a Councillor.
    3. To prevent any waste of taxpayers money.
    4. To ensure the Tories lose their majority in the May elections.
    5. To restore some degree of elegance to the town which has taken a bashing over the past 20years.
    6. To reduce the ridiculously high parking charges across the town.
    7. To reduce Council and Administration costs.
    8. To really help those that are suffering.

    That’s it. I will definitely not be responding to you on this website again. Paul will have his own thoughts. Ask him.

    Brian

  12. ‘Be a man and face me, anytime, anywhere.’ – that’s how you ask people to have a chat? OK 😀 No wonder you didn’t get elected!

    I promise you intelligent debate with me wouldn’t be a waste of time, I just don’t think you’d be receptive when the debate didn’t go the way you wanted.

    Once again I didn’t call you a liar, I called you deluded. Maybe I was being slightly caustic but when someone presents without qualification a statement that is pretty much entirely without foundation there aren’t that many possibilities.

    If you want to substantiate what you said then do so and prove me wrong? Or just run away (again).

    I think you and Van Looy are the ‘baddies’ in this piece. Its like the scene from Mitchell and Webb with the Nazi soldiers wondering why they have skulls everywhere. Your the ones peddling in anger, hatred, smears etc not Cllr Waite.

    Lets have a look at your list of your ‘policies’ (that was what I asked for) for the town:

    1. To have due respect for the wishes of the residents.
    2. To restore the pride in being a Councillor.
    3. To prevent any waste of taxpayers money.
    4. To ensure the Tories lose their majority in the May elections.
    5. To restore some degree of elegance to the town which has taken a bashing over the past 20years.
    6. To reduce the ridiculously high parking charges across the town.
    7. To reduce Council and Administration costs.
    8. To really help those that are suffering.

    So the first thing I have to say is that only one of those (6. reduce parking charges) is actually a ‘policy’ in any meaningful sense, but I’ll go through them anyway!

    As regards 1, 3, 7 & 8 I don’t think theres a single candidate who would disagree. I suppose its concievable that some on the left may look askew at 7, but I very much doubt it. No-one goes into politics to increase administration costs.

    2 & 5 are based on a premise I am not sure that I accept. I think any loss of pride in being a councillor is down to behaviour of people like yourself and the Independants who have consistently campaigned on the basis of wild accusations and mud slinging.

    I’ll give you an example, that pulled me in a bit – look at the furore over east beach, it was claimed that Cllr Waite was going to develope the beach, it was terrible, it was going to be ruined.

    I think the result has actually been fantastic. Cllr Assenheim made a bit of an ass of himself, but the independants seem to thrive on that. Negativity seems to be their main stock in trade.

    4. I’m not going to comment on, its very negative but then what have I just said.

    Turning to your one actual policy, to reduce car parking charges:

    well, whatd’ya know;

    http://cllrwaite.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/independents-demand-higher-parking-charges/

    Sure you don’t want so endorse Cllr Waite now?

  13. I’ve just read through this thread having been away a few days, and frankly am very sad at the degree of anger, and bitterness displayed by all parties to it.
    Richard, you seem to be of the ‘Anna Waite can do no wrong’ and ‘ if you disagree with me then you’re wrong & an idiot’ school of thought. I commented in good faith and simply questioned the logic applied previously. I was not rude nor did I attempt to ridicule anyone. I get a reply which appears to me to attempt to ridicule everything I said. I accept that you have every right to do so, but do you need to do so in such a rude and arrogant manner?
    At risk of getting an even more vitriolic posting from you,can I make a couple of points:-
    1. There is an official LibDem candidate standing so there cannot be any basis to accuse anyone, Independent or affiliated, of being “in collusion” with them. The fact that one candidate is being supported by someone else who had stood in previous election against them is not “collusion” which the dictioary defines as “secret or illegal”. To my mind it is supporting who one believes is the best candidate & therefore democracy in action, reminicent of what numerous politicians have done over the years, including Sir Winston Churchill when he switched parties.
    2. I understood blogs were specifically for debate and comment. Debate is discussion, not a slanging match, which this thread seems to have deteriorated into.

  14. Elsie I checked my reply to you and it was entirely civil and appropriate. SO I am really not sure what you are getting in a flap over. You are the one now accusing me of arrogance and vitriol, whereas I’ve never questioned your motives. There is no need to exaggerate, this thread has hardly become a slanging match. With regard to Brian, I’ve been substantially more polite to him than he was to Mrs Waite.

    It’s not a question of Mrs Waite being unable to do wrong, just that in this thread her critics have manifestly failed to demonstrate this wrongness or to substantiate their attacks. A lot of the people who attack her do genuinely appear, on balance, not to be the sharpest of knives.

    I think Brian was being a bully and deserved a robust response. You seem to forget that my issue from the start was Brian’s tone in his first post.

    This is a repeated theme among certain Independents and their supporters, namely just assuming that everyone agrees with their rather bizarre world view. I got another leaflet the other day from an independent, Mr Chytry, it’s basically two pages of fantasy and character assassination. Can you justify all his claims too? You do realise btw, that they’re materially not that different from the sort of thing Van Looy puts out right?

    As regards your point, I think you should re-read what Cllr Waite actually says, and consider the time at which the post was made. The post appears to have two thrusts to it – primarily questioning Van Looy’s independence and secondly discussing whether or not collusion has occurred. I should point Mrs Waite never actually says that collusion has occurred, only that it did in the past. The collusion referred two isn’t between Brian and Van looy, but between Cllr Longley and Van Looy. In that context your point makes slightly tortuous sense, whereas the word collusion seems appropriate.

    Now in the fullness of time we see that there is a LibDem Candidate so it looks at least unlikely that the suggested collusion between Cllr Longley and Van Looy actually took place. If Cllr Waite repeats the allegation without further evidence then she would be wrong. If you actually read what she’s written however, she was perfectly right to say what she did, and she went no further than her experience entitled her to do.

    Of course none of this means that there hasn’t been other forms of collusion, or collusion between different parties. Nor does does it mean that in joining up with an Ex-LibDem Van Looy’s independence hasn’t been compromised.

  15. Richard,
    Maybe it is just me, but you seem to be taking a very aggressive stance towards anything that is posted by anyone which looks to be even slightly critical of Anna Waite. I too have re read the posts and still feel you were being arrogant & rude. Maybe patronising is a better description? Whatever is the best description I should admit to being over 60 albeit female so I will doubtless fall into the stereotype you mentioned earlier. Please however, rest assured I am calm and certainly not getting into a flap over it as you allege.

    Sadly, you fail to mention that I was also critical of anyone saying they were resident in St Lukes if they were not, also that I was referring to the thread as a whole in my comment about the slanging match. You clearly don’t agree so we will have to leave it to others to decide on that one.

    Turning back to my point regarding the original post by Cllr Waite, which I have re-read several times, Cllr Waite says “Whilst I am sure Cllr Longley will disown this collusion, it would not be the first time he has done this. In 2006 the LibDems colluded with an independent….”. The allegation therefore is clearly that a candidate, Mr Van Looy, is colluding with last years LibDem candidate, not discussing whether or not it has taken place. Play with words as you and I will, that allegation is clear.
    So finally I repeat what I have said already, with further comment by way of explanation:-
    1. Being supported by a former LibDem candidate does not make an Independent candidate any less of an independent.
    2. The choice of the word “collusion” is unjustified in relation to this year (I have no knowledge of prior years). It implies secrecy and illegality which is clearly not the case.
    3. I want to see proper explanation of all candidates views, plus honest debate & discussion, not mudslinging & libelous allegations. As the owner of this website & blog and also the sitting Cllr, Mrs Waite should be giving the lead with this.

  16. I can’t keep repeating everything I mentioned previously, but once again I said:

    ‘The collusion referred two isn’t between Brian and Van looy, but between Cllr Longley and Van Looy.’

    Cllr Waite even refers to Cllr Longley herself, then the only further signifyier of whom she she is discussing is the use of the third person personal pronoun ‘he’ which can only be a reference to Cllr Longley. Even in the piece you quote mentions Councillor Longley. The suggestion was obviously that Cllr Longley was colluding with Van Looy not to put up a candidate. Based on the fact that Cllr Longley has done this in the past it was a fair question to raise. She didn’t say it was definately the case. At the time I think Cllr Waite was justified to have been suspicious.

    And all this stuff about the meaning of collusion. It is so frustrating because you are just wrong, I don’t know where you are getting it from. Collusion is defined in my version of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as “Collusion 1. Secret agreement of understanding for purposess of trickery or fraud; underhand scheming or working with another.” a synonym would be conspire.

    No-one is suggesting illegality here, nor is it a neccessary compenent for collusion to have existed. If A LibDem Leader had agreed not to stand a candidate in order to increase the Independents chances that would be almost universally recognised as collusion. I don’t know what more can be said.

    This isn;t wordplay, or trying to be clever. Its like you guys have a mental block thats preventing you from realising just how wrong you are. You criticise me for my acerbic tone yet blithely ignore the genuinely hateful comments made by Brian. Would you like to distance yourself from Brian? Do you think that going at people like that is justified?

    As I said to you before Independent seems to take on a slightly ephemeral meaning in this context, I think properly construed that Mr Van Looy, in joining up ‘in coalition’ (which is how Brian described it, and he ought to know) is certainly moving away from the spirit of the phrase.

    The only other suggestion I heard was the an Independant was someone who doesn;t have a whip, when I pointed out that neither do the tories, silence.

    Please tell me why it is that you are supporting Van Looy, and against Anna Waite?

  17. Cllr Waite states in her blog ” The so called Independent candidate in St Luke’s has joined forces with last year’s Lib Dem candidate for St Luke’s and SKIPP sympathiser. The stated object to get rid of the sitting ward Cllr Anna Waite.
    Whilst I am sure Cllr Longley will disown this collusion,…” Note the words “this collusion”. How can that refer to the previous year?

    As regards the meaning of collusion, surely that is fundamental! As to my source for the definition try Collins English Dictionary which states” secret agreement for a fraudulent purpose; conspiracy. A secret agreement between opponents at law for some improper purpose”. The online version of the Oxford English Dictionary states “secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others” whilst in my copy of the Oxford Dictionary it states “an agreement between two or more people for a deceitful or fraudulent purpose” . How then do these definitions make me wrong?

    I will treat your comment that I have a mental block with the contempt it deserves, but I will take serious issue with you when you say I ignore genuinely hateful comments made by Brian. I thought my initial comment ” I understood blogs were specifically for debate and comment. Debate is discussion, not a slanging match, which this thread seems to have deteriorated into.” and subsequent comment “I want to see proper explanation of all candidates views, plus honest debate & discussion, not mudslinging & libelous allegations.” dealt with that reasonably well? I have not singled out anyone and my comments apply to all. However so that there is no doubt whatsoever I dislike and condemn any malicious allegations or comments made about individuals. If anyone alleges improper behaviour then they should be prepared to prove them or face the consequences.

    Lastly, you ask why I am supporting one candidate in favour of another. If you can show me where I have said that I am doing so then I will answer that allegation. However the fact is that I have not done so nor am I. What I am keen to see is honest debate between candidates. That is the only reason I commented when I read the blog by Cllr Waite, and is why I also said Mr Van Looy should not say he lives in St Lukes Ward if he does not do so. I have not personally seen anything where he says that however, and on the official Council website listing candidates he shows his address as Arlington Road which is in Southchurch.

    Who I vote for I will determine when I have weighed up all the candidates, & heard what they have to say. That decision will however remain between me and my maker.

  18. Brian Ayling

    Thank you Elsie for your very sensible and pertinent comments. I will not respond to Richard’s comments but I will add that Councillor Longley had no input whatsoever into my decision to support Paul Van Looy. It was my sole decision. There was no collusion whatsoever I simply believe he is the best candidate for St. Lukes Ward and I was not prepared to stand against him. With respect to all the other comments, let us wait and see what the residents say on May 5th.

  19. Elsie, why are you asking me about last year now? Where did you get a reference to 2010 in anything I have said?

    Same with the definition. I pulled you up after you said, and I quote exactly:

    “It implies secrecy and illegality which is clearly not the case.”

    Note the use of ‘and’ in that sentence, not OR, AND. I’m using capitals to highlight the distinction, It was then that I correctly pointed out that illegality was not neccesarily implied by, nor a pre-requisite of, the use of the phrase collusion. I gave you the dictionary reference to assist you.

    And all the definitions you have given have agreed with that. What are you arguing with me about? When parties or candidates start coming together against another I think collusion is a perfectly valid term to use.

    I think the whole thing is very fishy. in 2010 Brian stands against Van Looy, in 2011 Van Looy is the best candidate for the ward. Colluding is a perjorative term, but then they are in competition, this is Cllr Waites private blog not the BBC. That notwithstanding the term collusion does not seem in any sense an unduly unfair one. Even if its not technically exact, so what? Materially it works.

    What was Mr Aylings motivation for this endorsement – that he thinks Mr Van Looy is the best candidate? Well he’s entirely failed to put a positive case for Van Looy or to defend his attacks on Mrs Waite. According to the blog – which has never been denied – the aim was ‘to get rid of Anna Waite’, judging by his initial comments I think that’s all to likely to be true.

    I think there is something rather messed up about that. I think colluding together is most likely precisely what Brian and Paul have been doing. I could be wrong but Brian is active in this thread and he’s done or said nothing that would dissuade me (or anyone) from that line of thought. As it happens I don;t think Anna was even reffering to brian and Paul colluding, but of Cllr Longley of the lib dems colluding with independants to try and cost the Conservatives the most seats. Maybe you support that approach to politics – personally I think its secretive and decietful. As it has turned out the lib dems have put up a candidate but that wasn’t known at the time this post was made.

    Collusion sounds to me like an entirely appropriate phrase and I cannot see the basis of your objection to it.

    “However I do know that he lived in Cokefield Road which is in the ward for many years and he therefore does know the problems & issues facing the ward better than someone who doesn’t even live in the town let alone the ward.”

    Your comment about the innapropriateness of Van Looy claiming to live where he doesn’t was proceeded by this. It made me think that you were supportive of Van Looy. I don;t think that was an unreasonable inference in the circumstances. Your attempts to claim otherwise don’t quite ring true, but ok if that is what you say.

    You also failed to answer my question about where else Van Looy has lived and when, if you know. I think living in one neighbouring ward is much the same as living in any other. I think having lived in the ward for some time in the past gives Van Looy very little credit in and of itself. I don;t think this sort of obsessive localism is logically supportable. If Cllr Waite lived in norfolk or Paris then you might have a point, but she doesn’t.

  20. Richard,
    1. I don’t understand why you think I am asking you about 2010 ; you are mistaken in thinking that. Please read my comments in my last post again. Cllr Waite referred to “this collusion” when talking about the current election, and that is what I am addressing. I have already stated that I am unaware of what happened previously.
    2.You stated you didn’t know where I was getting the definition of collusion from so I gave you the source, and the definitions from other dictionaries as well. The common thread with all appears to me to be illegality or impropriety, exactly what you say is not necessarily a component of it!
    To me if you accuse someone of collusion you are suggesting they are acting in a secret underhand and dishonest way. That can hardly be said of a former LibDem candidate in a previous election choosing to openly back another candidate in a subsequent election. You clearly disagree which is your right, but I am content that most people will struggle to understand your logic.
    3. I’m not sure I understand your point when you refer to this blog being Cllr Waites private blog not the BBC. By the very fact that it is open to all and invites comments it cannot be a private blog, except in the sense that it is owned by her. Are you perhaps implying that she is entitled to post items without anyone challenging them if they disagree? If so I suggest that the Comment facility is shut down, but isn’t that restricting freedom of speech?
    4. I frankly don’t care whether you believe me when I say I am not supporting one candidate over another. Whether you accept it or not, that is the truth. You clearly imply I am being dishonest in that statement, and if that is your opinion, then you are wrong.
    5. I failed to answer your question about where else Mr Van Looy has lived and when because you qualified your question by saying “if you knew” and I don’t. I notice from the council list of candidates that he lives currently in Arlington Road which is in Southchurch.
    6. I have not addressed your arguments about Mr Aylings motivation as I am not aware of the circumstances. I have not yet heard anything from any of the candidates to persuade me who is worthy of my vote. Attempting to gather information about each candidates views and opinions is what led me to read this blog in the first place.

  21. 1. “Whilst I am sure Cllr Longley will disown this collusion,…” Note the words “this collusion”. How can that refer to the previous year?”

    “I don’t understand why you think I am asking you about 2010″

    2.”The common thread with all appears to me to be illegality or impropriety, exactly what you say is not necessarily a component of it!”

    Impropriety yes… illegality no. There’s a big difference between the two.

    3. It was fairly obvious what I meant and it was in reference to her use of the term ‘colluded’ over a more neutral phrase. It clearly had nothing to do with freedom of speech or any of the other things you have listed.

    4. Your comments suggest partiality. That is my reading of them.

    5. “I notice from the council list of candidates that he lives currently in Arlington Road which is in Southchurch.” yet you also knew about his previous address as well, I thought perhaps you might have some more general knowledge.

    I really feel like you’re not quite following this discussion

  22. 1. Your answer makes no sense to me. Please explain.
    2. You are splitting hairs and clearly we will never agree.
    3. If it was fairly obvious to me I wouldn’t have said otherwise. Can’t you ever accept that if I say I’m not sure what your point is, I mean it!
    4. That is your reading as you say. I feel sorry for you if you go through life questioning everyones motives as you keep doing mine.
    5. As I have already said, I have no knowledge of other previous addresses, so what is your point? His current address is freely available to anyone who cares to look at the list of candidates. I know he lived in Cokefield at one time because for a short while my family lived in the same neighbourhood. What are you trying to imply?

    Your closing remark is insulting and offensive and I am getting pretty tired of your constant sniping . I am trying to have an honest & frank discussion with you . If I am not quite following it, maybe that means you are not explaining yourself very well?

    You have several times questioned my motives in this, which I have explained honestly (wherther or not you believe me). Just what exactly is your connection with Anne Waite and /or the Conservative Party &/or this blog/website?

  23. Elsie,
    1. I wanted to know why seemingly apropos nothing you asked me

    “Whilst I am sure Cllr Longley will disown this collusion,…” Note the words “this collusion”. How can that refer to the previous year?”

    This being 2011, the previous year is 2010. I said nothing about last year. Could you point me to where in my comments I suggested that the collusion referred to in that sentence occurred in 2010? Or explain to me what you were trying to say?

    2. It was you who made a point of saying;

    “As regards the meaning of collusion, surely that is fundamental! “

    You were the one who started trying to give dictionary definitions to bolster your argument.

    You were so enamored with the idea that you went on to cite a further three dictionaries.

    But you were using the definition wrongly. There is nothing insignificant or minor about a requirement for there to have been illegality.

    Why you would make the mistake at all I don’t know, why you can’t just accept the error and move on, is a quandary for us all.

    But now I’m the one splitting hairs, because I correct you? Really Elsie.

    3. OK.

    4. I don’t keep questioning your motives, I said you didn’t come across as impartial. You don’t. If I’d suggested you were corrupt and unprincipled then you might have a legitimate complaint. I didn’t. Suggesting that you might support Van Looy is hardly ‘questioning your motives’.

    5. You seemed to know about where he lived, so I asked you about it. Don’t get so defensive.

    6. It has actually occurred to me that I need to be clearer in my explanations to you. I’m just not sure how to do that whist avoiding unnecessary prolix. It is not as though I have said anything particularly complicated or challenging.

    7.My closing statement was not particularly insulting or offensive. Please don’t keep trying to claim the moral high ground, it is very tedious. You seem determined to set yourself up as some sort of arbiter of acceptable behaviour. That’s not your role and its not a position I have much respect for you in. Just stick to making your arguments and please spare us the exposition on who in your opinion is being mean to whom.

    I’m particularly tired since generally I was polite with you and it seems to me as though you are simply trying to hide behind supposed insult.

    8. I was a member of Conservative Future at university. Otherwise my link with Anna Waite, this blog or the party is pretty limited.

  24. Richard,
    Your latest haranging says everything I need to know about you. I can see that whatever I say you will see only what you want to see. However for the benefit of others reading this thread, I will persevere:-
    1. You ask : “Could you point me to where in my comments I suggested that the collusion referred to in that sentence occurred in 2010?”
    2. In referring to a previous year I should have referred to previous years, specifically 2006 as quoted by Cllr Waite. You are not alone in commiting typo’s ! My point is that Cllr Waite suggests that collusion is taking place this year, that is 2011, & in my opinion, clearly not yours, being backed by someone who previously stood as a LibDem does not justify the use of the word collusion which to me suggests illegality or secrecy in an attempt to decieve.
    Clearly your view on the meaning of collusion differs from mine. You say I was using the definition wrongly but unless you are able to prove otherwise I don’t think that you are in a position to say that. It is at best your opinion only. Having sounded out several people, admittedly all of my age , on what they considered the word to imply, almost everyone thought it suggested illegality or trickery or deceit.
    3. Thank you.
    4. I have said several times that I don’t support one candidate over another. You have several times replied that to you I am supportive of Mr Van Looy. If that is not questioning my motives, it is certainly saying you don’t believe me. That is your right & choice, but you are wrong!
    5. You asked & I replied. I’m not being defensive, just curious why you then found it necessary to say “yet you also knew about his previous address as well…”
    6. I am glad to hear that you feel you should be clearer in your explanations to me. I’m so sorry it is necessary but I’m afraid much of what you have said has simply not made much sense to me. I’m afraid however that you have already failed in your attempt to avoid unnecessary prolix.
    7. I am content to let other readers decide whether your closing remark was insulting, and whether I am “trying to hide behind supposed insult”. I’m sorry to say your view on what being polite is, differs from mine.
    8. In the same way you doubt that I am not supporting Mr Van Looy, I should perhaps have doubts as to how limited your links to Cllr Waite actually are. However, at risk of being accused of trying to take the moral high ground, I am prepared to accept that you have answered honestly.

  25. This really is becoming farcical. You’re asking your friends what collusion means? Why? Because I said it doesn’t require an element of illegality. which your dictionaries, and your friends all agree with me on. Why are we still discussing this? I corrected you ages ago. What are you trying to establish now?

    You think I’m haranguing you? Because I took the phrase ‘the previous year’ to mean last year. Even accepting it was a typo, why didn’t you say so immediately when I queried it? Even now I know it was a typo, your comment STILL doesn’t make sense.

    There is no need to continue to discuss the definition of collusion. You sated collusion required illegality. I said it didn’t. You then went to dictionaries which agreed with me that collusion didn’t require illegality. Now your friends agree with me also. great. There can be collusion without illegality.

    So what we are left with is collusion implying (to use your word) impropriety. You cannot see why the implication of impropriety could be justified in Cllr Waites post? I am staggered by this. If there was some agreement whereby the lib dem candidate would support the independant in order to make life difficult for Mrs Waite then I think collusion is an entirely appropriate term.

  26. This is getting very protracted, collusion or not when an Independent comes together with a person from another party then the Independent is no longerquite so Independent.
    P Van Looy does not live in St Luke’s despite his attempts to persuade residents otherwise by attacking where I live! I have never sought to hide that I live in Barling. I care about the ward and the town, I work hard for them- that is what counts. I also campaign on the issues and my leaflets are positive and true, not full of spin, promises and inuendo that can never be delivered. As for Brian Ayling- I have never more than acknowleged him in passing. These are two angry men who seek to get rid of me for no reason other than they both had a run in with planning, as they both went ahead and developed their property without consent. Fine upright citizens the pair of them.