Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Alice
Through The Looking Glass Revisited":
Something is a little fishy
here. She needed bulletproof glass in her office because she was under threat...
yet during the campaign she was seen on street corners around town waving at
traffic where she was an easy target for any nutbar to take a pot shot at her
if one had so chosen. Something just doesn't add up: either she DID fear for her
life and made a case for taxpayers to shell out for her protection or she did
NOT fear for her life and was comfortable enough to stand on street
corners.
Once again the taxpayers were had by a mayor without merit and it
doesn't matter to me whether the cost for "protective screening" was great or
small,. It should not have come out of my pocket
***********************
Council was never officially informed of what was done to the windows of the Mayor's office.
It sounds like the person who referred to "protective sheeting" might know whereof he speaks.
Some melodrama was always being enacted.The main character needed no encouragement.
Even before the office was won, numerous individuals received formal notification of this or that legal complaint against them.
Then there were the shrill threats of destruction gainst anyone perceived likely to cross her path.
It should not be forgotten, under normal circumstances, no possibility exists for the Mayor's office to be so flagrantly abused as it was during the 2007/10 term of office.
It took agreement and acquiescence of everyone surrounding her to make it happen
It is still beyond imagination.
.
Friday, 9 November 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
I think that the orignal poster may be on to something here. It is probably not the popular opinion here so it may not be well received.
"Council was never officially informed of window modifications."
I seriously doubt in the normal course of business that council needs to be informed of any window modifications. If they are, then there is something seriously wrong with the deligation of authority. However, SOMEONE within the walls of Town Hall has access to an accounts payable file that holds the invoice that was paid for this modification. It should be a simple request to have that invoice pulled to see what was done.
If the modification was not "bullet proof" glass, then how does innuendo like this get purported into fact? Who is responsible for continuing this innuendo? I think melodrama is not an accurate description if this is true.
I too find it strange that she would stand on a street waving at traffic but still have this glass modification done.
I fear that there are those that have so much disdain for her that they will cobble up all sorts of things to support their positions.
Council should create a Vigilante Committee, to hold vigils whenever something similar crops up.
It would be the committee's responsibility to report to Council and simultaneously to the press.
4:32 It was Ms Morris' lawyer, Mr O'Melia, who said in court that ' protective sheeting ' was installed and that the shrubbery was modified. No one made it up unless he did. But anyone can tell you about the 2 locked doors that 'led' to her office.
The Snark is Back with posts at 4:32 and 4:33 PM.
It's the Georgina Advocat, the Banner's sister paper, that has the Aurora story.. More hard-hitting journalism.
OK I think the thing that frightened the Former were Words. Not a great thing for someone in politics. Read what is said about politicians of all stripes. The American election was dreadful. A legal acquaintance of ours who read about Morris asked, " What is she? A five-year old? " We had no answer for him.
Staff were told to prepare their resumes. They thought it was a joke. It wasn't.
There would appear to be a real problem with pubic perception. One lawyer for Morris presents a version of events in the SLAPP lawsuit. Then yet another lawyer for Morris in her COI case describes a totally different reading of the same events. People in Aurora have their own views and they differ from either of the ones presented in Court. And the opinions of all the councillors involved are at variance.
Real problem.
Thank you!
The Agenda for Council appears quite straight-forward. .You might even get an early evening?
The article in the Advocate is just Sean Pearce's one on the SLAPP. I hope he gets paid for every paper that picks it up but doubt it.
Post a Comment