Christchurch council leader Ray Nottage comes under fire after calling the Echo's flood coverage "pathetic" and "inaccurate"

Bournemouth Echo: Cllr Ray Nottage Cllr Ray Nottage

THE leader of Christchurch council has come under fire after criticising the Daily Echo’s flood coverage as “pathetic”, “inaccurate” and “irresponsible”.

Cllr Ray Nottage’s blog post on Sunday night praised council officers for their clean-up efforts in the borough over the weekend but said “...not a journalist from our ‘high quality newspaper’ in sight. Too many good news stories I suspect!”

After responses from residents online saying his remark was “undeserved” and praising the comprehensive coverage, Cllr Nottage responded saying after all the work the council had done to inform and protect residents’ property, “I think it irresponsible to trivialise the work of council, the members and officers by the level of reporting displayed through the crisis.”

The Daily Echo exclusively reported last week that Christchurch council was refusing to provide flood-hit residents of Conifer Close with free sandbags or plastic sheeting.

Residents say they requested sandbags from the council but were told they would have to purchase floodsacks at £30 for a pack of four.

Responding to a comment on his blog, Cllr Nottage said of the Echo’s report: “To interpret that as ....charging for SANDBAGS.......is irresponsible as well as being inaccurate. All designed to deharmonise. Pathetic!!"

In a U-turn, just 24 hours later, the council announced it would provide sandbags and pledged to refund flood-hit residents who had bought their own.

When contacted by the Daily Echo, Cllr Nottage said he was “furious” about the coverage of the sandbag situation, saying the council did not charge for sandbags but had been charging £30 for four floodsacks.

He said the floodsacks were “innovations” launched two or three years ago and that up until last week, Christchurch council did not sell or hold sandbags but changed its policy on Thursday due to the severity of the impending storm.

“I thought you might have done a bit of journalistic research to establish the true nature of the situation”, he said.

He added: “You published inaccurate information which I think pulled the council into disrepute.”

The Daily Echo has not had any contact from Christchurch council over inaccuracies concerning the sandbags story.

Cllr Nottage later deleted one of his responses to a blog comment, saying it had been posted “in anger”.

Comments (62)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:31am Tue 18 Feb 14

politicaltrainspotter says...

High quality newspaper ! Which one is he talking about ? High quality newspaper has investigative reporters and not a Deputy editor in the pocket of the Tories.Sssh, must keep that story quiet.
High quality newspaper ! Which one is he talking about ? High quality newspaper has investigative reporters and not a Deputy editor in the pocket of the Tories.Sssh, must keep that story quiet. politicaltrainspotter

6:53am Tue 18 Feb 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional! The-Bleeding-Obvious

7:08am Tue 18 Feb 14

retry69 says...

"Pathetic,inaccurate and irresponsible" not really news is it a lot of commenters have been saying similar for months and haven't made the headlines :)
"Pathetic,inaccurate and irresponsible" not really news is it a lot of commenters have been saying similar for months and haven't made the headlines :) retry69

7:22am Tue 18 Feb 14

skydriver says...

The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks.
Yet another of his many gaffs.
When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch.
Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .
The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks. Yet another of his many gaffs. When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch. Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage . skydriver

7:30am Tue 18 Feb 14

Baysider says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot. Baysider

7:30am Tue 18 Feb 14

arthur1948 says...

No different to the governments reaction to the flooding...the whole lot are pathetic....MONEY RULES..can find it tho when the muck hits the fan and they start to look bad....
No different to the governments reaction to the flooding...the whole lot are pathetic....MONEY RULES..can find it tho when the muck hits the fan and they start to look bad.... arthur1948

8:25am Tue 18 Feb 14

Chris@Bmouth says...

Bringing the council into disrepute. WELL, I wonder who the culprits are behind that.
Maybe charging for sand bags was one hell of an idea then you miraculously change your minds once it hits the press. Sounds like corruption to me.
Bringing the council into disrepute. WELL, I wonder who the culprits are behind that. Maybe charging for sand bags was one hell of an idea then you miraculously change your minds once it hits the press. Sounds like corruption to me. Chris@Bmouth

8:36am Tue 18 Feb 14

trolley says...

I do wonder if they took this opportunity to destroy more trees to pave the way for more retirement homes,this would have been an ideal opportunity for it and blame it on the storm
I do wonder if they took this opportunity to destroy more trees to pave the way for more retirement homes,this would have been an ideal opportunity for it and blame it on the storm trolley

8:42am Tue 18 Feb 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative? The-Bleeding-Obvious

8:44am Tue 18 Feb 14

Baysider says...

trolley wrote:
I do wonder if they took this opportunity to destroy more trees to pave the way for more retirement homes,this would have been an ideal opportunity for it and blame it on the storm
...who? The council took time out from dealing with 100's of emergency calls to pop around with a chainsaw to chop down a perfectly healthy tree? Really?
[quote][p][bold]trolley[/bold] wrote: I do wonder if they took this opportunity to destroy more trees to pave the way for more retirement homes,this would have been an ideal opportunity for it and blame it on the storm[/p][/quote]...who? The council took time out from dealing with 100's of emergency calls to pop around with a chainsaw to chop down a perfectly healthy tree? Really? Baysider

9:07am Tue 18 Feb 14

Keffect says...

skydriver wrote:
The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks.
Yet another of his many gaffs.
When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch.
Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .
We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good.
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks. Yet another of his many gaffs. When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch. Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .[/p][/quote]We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good. Keffect

9:10am Tue 18 Feb 14

jobsworthwatch says...

Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Probably the councils contractors that were working the 'long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions' council employees are not normally allowed to change a light bulb without a health and safety risk assessment.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Probably the councils contractors that were working the 'long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions' council employees are not normally allowed to change a light bulb without a health and safety risk assessment. jobsworthwatch

9:18am Tue 18 Feb 14

billy bumble says...

Keffect wrote:
skydriver wrote:
The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks.
Yet another of his many gaffs.
When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch.
Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .
We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good.
The " blue rinse brigade" may surprise everyone next year

UKIP's policy re Europe ( which tbh is pretty much the only policy they have ) resonates VERY strongly with the over 60's
[quote][p][bold]Keffect[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks. Yet another of his many gaffs. When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch. Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .[/p][/quote]We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good.[/p][/quote]The " blue rinse brigade" may surprise everyone next year UKIP's policy re Europe ( which tbh is pretty much the only policy they have ) resonates VERY strongly with the over 60's billy bumble

9:25am Tue 18 Feb 14

MissIngbirds says...

trolley wrote:
I do wonder if they took this opportunity to destroy more trees to pave the way for more retirement homes,this would have been an ideal opportunity for it and blame it on the storm
Instead of blaming tractors!
[quote][p][bold]trolley[/bold] wrote: I do wonder if they took this opportunity to destroy more trees to pave the way for more retirement homes,this would have been an ideal opportunity for it and blame it on the storm[/p][/quote]Instead of blaming tractors! MissIngbirds

9:47am Tue 18 Feb 14

woby_tide says...

billy bumble wrote:
Keffect wrote:
skydriver wrote:
The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks.
Yet another of his many gaffs.
When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch.
Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .
We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good.
The " blue rinse brigade" may surprise everyone next year

UKIP's policy re Europe ( which tbh is pretty much the only policy they have ) resonates VERY strongly with the over 60's
Yep fantastic, so all the blue rinsers who were voting Tory in the 80s feel a bit disillusioned with the current policies so have found a party dominated by blue rinsers who have the same politics they had in the 80s.

Fantastic progress for the town
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keffect[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks. Yet another of his many gaffs. When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch. Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .[/p][/quote]We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good.[/p][/quote]The " blue rinse brigade" may surprise everyone next year UKIP's policy re Europe ( which tbh is pretty much the only policy they have ) resonates VERY strongly with the over 60's[/p][/quote]Yep fantastic, so all the blue rinsers who were voting Tory in the 80s feel a bit disillusioned with the current policies so have found a party dominated by blue rinsers who have the same politics they had in the 80s. Fantastic progress for the town woby_tide

10:17am Tue 18 Feb 14

BIGTONE says...

He said the floodsacks were “innovations” launched two or three years ago and that up until last week, Christchurch council did not sell or hold sandbags but changed its policy on Thursday due to the severity of the impending storm.


No.......it was the boot of number 10 placed where the sun don't shine that sorted it.
He said the floodsacks were “innovations” launched two or three years ago and that up until last week, Christchurch council did not sell or hold sandbags but changed its policy on Thursday due to the severity of the impending storm. No.......it was the boot of number 10 placed where the sun don't shine that sorted it. BIGTONE

10:30am Tue 18 Feb 14

Baysider says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources.

Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?[/p][/quote]Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources. Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says? Baysider

10:52am Tue 18 Feb 14

Baysider says...

Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources.

Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?
Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?[/p][/quote]Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources. Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?[/p][/quote]Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..." Baysider

11:08am Tue 18 Feb 14

BmthNewshound says...

Nottage needs to get some tips of Beesley on how to manipulate local newspaper headlines.
.
Daily Echo’s coverage described as “pathetic”, “inaccurate” and “irresponsible”.
.. Although this could be applied to many articles in the Echo in the case of the local floods I think the Echo has actually done a pretty good job in what was a fast moving story and locally peoples priorities were rightly directed to dealing with the floods and not briefing the press.
.
Local media has changed and social media and reader generated content provides far more up to date information and is far less disruptive than having journalists getting in the way and clogging up phone lines.
.
On the floods I give the Daily Echo the thumbs up, on other subject matters I think the Echo already knows my views !
Nottage needs to get some tips of Beesley on how to manipulate local newspaper headlines. . Daily Echo’s coverage described as “pathetic”, “inaccurate” and “irresponsible”. .. Although this could be applied to many articles in the Echo in the case of the local floods I think the Echo has actually done a pretty good job in what was a fast moving story and locally peoples priorities were rightly directed to dealing with the floods and not briefing the press. . Local media has changed and social media and reader generated content provides far more up to date information and is far less disruptive than having journalists getting in the way and clogging up phone lines. . On the floods I give the Daily Echo the thumbs up, on other subject matters I think the Echo already knows my views ! BmthNewshound

11:59am Tue 18 Feb 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Baysider wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources.

Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?
Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."
Thanks for the invitation!
Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?[/p][/quote]Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources. Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?[/p][/quote]Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."[/p][/quote]Thanks for the invitation! Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government. The-Bleeding-Obvious

12:20pm Tue 18 Feb 14

retrogeoff says...

Well, here we have a good example of democracy experienced from 'the comfort of our own home'. At last, a photo of bricklayer Flower's mate Nottage without a trowel/hammer in hand and a wearing a 'Bob the builder' hat. No lessons learned here then. It is all your fault Corporal Jones. Yes, Captain Mainwaring. Gosh, was that a zebra I saw trotting by. Splash, clippity, splash, splash......
Well, here we have a good example of democracy experienced from 'the comfort of our own home'. At last, a photo of bricklayer Flower's mate Nottage without a trowel/hammer in hand and a wearing a 'Bob the builder' hat. No lessons learned here then. It is all your fault Corporal Jones. Yes, Captain Mainwaring. Gosh, was that a zebra I saw trotting by. Splash, clippity, splash, splash...... retrogeoff

12:55pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Baysider says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources.

Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?
Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."
Thanks for the invitation!
Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.
Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society?

Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe.

If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening.

The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?[/p][/quote]Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources. Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?[/p][/quote]Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."[/p][/quote]Thanks for the invitation! Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.[/p][/quote]Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society? Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe. If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening. The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot. Baysider

1:15pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Pablo23 says...

Ha !!!

"When contacted by the Daily Echo, Cllr Nottage said he was “furious” about the coverage of the sandbag situation, saying the council did not charge for sandbags but had been charging £30 for four floodsacks."

Look up what a Flood Sack is. Its a bag with sand in it !
Ha !!! "When contacted by the Daily Echo, Cllr Nottage said he was “furious” about the coverage of the sandbag situation, saying the council did not charge for sandbags but had been charging £30 for four floodsacks." Look up what a Flood Sack is. Its a bag with sand in it ! Pablo23

1:37pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Baysider says...

http://www.floodsax.
co.uk/floodsax/

...no they are not.
http://www.floodsax. co.uk/floodsax/ ...no they are not. Baysider

1:43pm Tue 18 Feb 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources.

Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?
Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."
Thanks for the invitation!
Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.
Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society?

Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe.

If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening.

The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.
You could be right, I reckon I am an idiot, I'd love to be on easy street. Working 9 to 5, retire at 60, gold plated pensions, no need to make a profit, no need to be competitive, no need to innovate...... I work on my own, in my own hi-tech engineering business, 12 hours most days, I don't have weekends because every day is the same for me and for the privilege I have to pay almost £600 a month in council tax and business rates, that is disgusting!
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?[/p][/quote]Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources. Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?[/p][/quote]Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."[/p][/quote]Thanks for the invitation! Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.[/p][/quote]Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society? Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe. If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening. The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.[/p][/quote]You could be right, I reckon I am an idiot, I'd love to be on easy street. Working 9 to 5, retire at 60, gold plated pensions, no need to make a profit, no need to be competitive, no need to innovate...... I work on my own, in my own hi-tech engineering business, 12 hours most days, I don't have weekends because every day is the same for me and for the privilege I have to pay almost £600 a month in council tax and business rates, that is disgusting! The-Bleeding-Obvious

1:45pm Tue 18 Feb 14

UKIP4U says...

billy bumble wrote:
Keffect wrote:
skydriver wrote:
The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks.
Yet another of his many gaffs.
When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch.
Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .
We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good.
The " blue rinse brigade" may surprise everyone next year

UKIP's policy re Europe ( which tbh is pretty much the only policy they have ) resonates VERY strongly with the over 60's
The problem is not just nottage and his motley crew but the fact they are tories,they have to obey central government on issues that overide local policies,so if you want real change where locals are given a referendum on important issues such as druitt gdns then vote UKIP.
Christchurch UKIP has a website where you can read their policies ,i'm sure this will dissapoint the trolls who try to use the "protest" party scam to score points,give up it doesn't work any more.
www.christchurch.uki
p.org
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keffect[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks. Yet another of his many gaffs. When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch. Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .[/p][/quote]We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good.[/p][/quote]The " blue rinse brigade" may surprise everyone next year UKIP's policy re Europe ( which tbh is pretty much the only policy they have ) resonates VERY strongly with the over 60's[/p][/quote]The problem is not just nottage and his motley crew but the fact they are tories,they have to obey central government on issues that overide local policies,so if you want real change where locals are given a referendum on important issues such as druitt gdns then vote UKIP. Christchurch UKIP has a website where you can read their policies ,i'm sure this will dissapoint the trolls who try to use the "protest" party scam to score points,give up it doesn't work any more. www.christchurch.uki p.org UKIP4U

1:51pm Tue 18 Feb 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

journalistic research and the echo are at 2 different ends of the spectrum.
sensationalism and copy and paste is all they are capable of.
journalistic research and the echo are at 2 different ends of the spectrum. sensationalism and copy and paste is all they are capable of. thevoiceofreason1

2:02pm Tue 18 Feb 14

ranger_bob says...

Keffect wrote:
skydriver wrote:
The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks.
Yet another of his many gaffs.
When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch.
Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .
We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good.
It's called democracy. The 33% took the opportunity to exercise their democratic right and as such they then got the right to elect whichever councillor they wish. The 67% who didn't vote are the ones who probably complain the loudest on here, yet couldn't be bothered to get off their backsides and spend 5 mintues exercising the vote!
[quote][p][bold]Keffect[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks. Yet another of his many gaffs. When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch. Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .[/p][/quote]We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good.[/p][/quote]It's called democracy. The 33% took the opportunity to exercise their democratic right and as such they then got the right to elect whichever councillor they wish. The 67% who didn't vote are the ones who probably complain the loudest on here, yet couldn't be bothered to get off their backsides and spend 5 mintues exercising the vote! ranger_bob

2:06pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Julie G says...

No more than I would expect from him - but then I suppose him and his mates were cosied up in one of the many bars/establishments they just so happen to own/run in and around town whilst the rest of us mere mortals were worrying about our properties etc.

When are people going to admit that we the "normal" people dont have confidence in our council - that they are nothing but out of touch has beens who are feathering their own nests for retirement - which in light of everything else that has been going on in the town lately is becoming more and more obvious!!!!

Get a life Mr Nottage, stop ****' and prove the people wrong
No more than I would expect from him - but then I suppose him and his mates were cosied up in one of the many bars/establishments they just so happen to own/run in and around town whilst the rest of us mere mortals were worrying about our properties etc. When are people going to admit that we the "normal" people dont have confidence in our council - that they are nothing but out of touch has beens who are feathering their own nests for retirement - which in light of everything else that has been going on in the town lately is becoming more and more obvious!!!! Get a life Mr Nottage, stop ****' and prove the people wrong Julie G

2:28pm Tue 18 Feb 14

xchresident says...

The Echo's coverage of local issues has been excellent, and the on-line coverage during the storm night was very helpful. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, ECHO!

Council employees are trying to do their best at a time when everyone is scared of losing their job. They are subject to their managers and cannot risk stepping out of line.

Council decision makers---Senior Councillors and Senior Officers --are supposed to be above this-- They should be courageous enough to do be led by the needs of their residents and their own their consciences, not a whip. Councillors must take responsibility for their votes in key committees and Officers for their decisions and the Reports they write to Council Committees.

But we don't even get to read how our Councillors vote!

Given this lack of transparency where would we be without our two excellent local papers-- the Echo and the New Milton Advertiser and Times?
The Echo's coverage of local issues has been excellent, and the on-line coverage during the storm night was very helpful. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, ECHO! Council employees are trying to do their best at a time when everyone is scared of losing their job. They are subject to their managers and cannot risk stepping out of line. Council decision makers---Senior Councillors and Senior Officers --are supposed to be above this-- They should be courageous enough to do be led by the needs of their residents and their own their consciences, not a whip. Councillors must take responsibility for their votes in key committees and Officers for their decisions and the Reports they write to Council Committees. But we don't even get to read how our Councillors vote! Given this lack of transparency where would we be without our two excellent local papers-- the Echo and the New Milton Advertiser and Times? xchresident

2:32pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Baysider says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources.

Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?
Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."
Thanks for the invitation!
Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.
Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society?

Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe.

If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening.

The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.
You could be right, I reckon I am an idiot, I'd love to be on easy street. Working 9 to 5, retire at 60, gold plated pensions, no need to make a profit, no need to be competitive, no need to innovate...... I work on my own, in my own hi-tech engineering business, 12 hours most days, I don't have weekends because every day is the same for me and for the privilege I have to pay almost £600 a month in council tax and business rates, that is disgusting!
...cliché after tired, outdated and ignorant cliché.

You work hard and you benefit directly from that. Well done but that does NOT give you the right to unfairly dig out the WHOLE workforce of those in the public sector. Many of who have been working just as hard in appalling conditions for I'd suggest significantly less.

Grow up and recognise that private sector doesn't always equal good and public sector equal bad.
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?[/p][/quote]Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources. Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?[/p][/quote]Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."[/p][/quote]Thanks for the invitation! Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.[/p][/quote]Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society? Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe. If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening. The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.[/p][/quote]You could be right, I reckon I am an idiot, I'd love to be on easy street. Working 9 to 5, retire at 60, gold plated pensions, no need to make a profit, no need to be competitive, no need to innovate...... I work on my own, in my own hi-tech engineering business, 12 hours most days, I don't have weekends because every day is the same for me and for the privilege I have to pay almost £600 a month in council tax and business rates, that is disgusting![/p][/quote]...cliché after tired, outdated and ignorant cliché. You work hard and you benefit directly from that. Well done but that does NOT give you the right to unfairly dig out the WHOLE workforce of those in the public sector. Many of who have been working just as hard in appalling conditions for I'd suggest significantly less. Grow up and recognise that private sector doesn't always equal good and public sector equal bad. Baysider

3:08pm Tue 18 Feb 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources.

Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?
Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."
Thanks for the invitation!
Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.
Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society?

Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe.

If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening.

The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.
You could be right, I reckon I am an idiot, I'd love to be on easy street. Working 9 to 5, retire at 60, gold plated pensions, no need to make a profit, no need to be competitive, no need to innovate...... I work on my own, in my own hi-tech engineering business, 12 hours most days, I don't have weekends because every day is the same for me and for the privilege I have to pay almost £600 a month in council tax and business rates, that is disgusting!
...cliché after tired, outdated and ignorant cliché.

You work hard and you benefit directly from that. Well done but that does NOT give you the right to unfairly dig out the WHOLE workforce of those in the public sector. Many of who have been working just as hard in appalling conditions for I'd suggest significantly less.

Grow up and recognise that private sector doesn't always equal good and public sector equal bad.
Can't you make any comments without making 'pointed remarks'
You need to create wealth to pay for public services, and that is what we have not been doing. It's because Thatcher was happy to preside over a running down of British manufacturing in the belief we could just keep making money out of money in the spiv economy and Browns answer was to take on almost a million extra jobsworths!
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?[/p][/quote]Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources. Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?[/p][/quote]Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."[/p][/quote]Thanks for the invitation! Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.[/p][/quote]Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society? Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe. If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening. The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.[/p][/quote]You could be right, I reckon I am an idiot, I'd love to be on easy street. Working 9 to 5, retire at 60, gold plated pensions, no need to make a profit, no need to be competitive, no need to innovate...... I work on my own, in my own hi-tech engineering business, 12 hours most days, I don't have weekends because every day is the same for me and for the privilege I have to pay almost £600 a month in council tax and business rates, that is disgusting![/p][/quote]...cliché after tired, outdated and ignorant cliché. You work hard and you benefit directly from that. Well done but that does NOT give you the right to unfairly dig out the WHOLE workforce of those in the public sector. Many of who have been working just as hard in appalling conditions for I'd suggest significantly less. Grow up and recognise that private sector doesn't always equal good and public sector equal bad.[/p][/quote]Can't you make any comments without making 'pointed remarks' You need to create wealth to pay for public services, and that is what we have not been doing. It's because Thatcher was happy to preside over a running down of British manufacturing in the belief we could just keep making money out of money in the spiv economy and Browns answer was to take on almost a million extra jobsworths! The-Bleeding-Obvious

3:14pm Tue 18 Feb 14

skydriver says...

Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources.

Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?
Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."
Thanks for the invitation!
Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.
Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society?

Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe.

If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening.

The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.
What did you say about rhetoric............
...think about how you comment before you comment., is it really a requirement to call another commenter an idiot? Has it come to that level?
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?[/p][/quote]Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources. Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?[/p][/quote]Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."[/p][/quote]Thanks for the invitation! Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.[/p][/quote]Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society? Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe. If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening. The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.[/p][/quote]What did you say about rhetoric............ ...think about how you comment before you comment., is it really a requirement to call another commenter an idiot? Has it come to that level? skydriver

4:42pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Baysider says...

skydriver wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources.

Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?
Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."
Thanks for the invitation!
Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.
Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society?

Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe.

If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening.

The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.
What did you say about rhetoric............

...think about how you comment before you comment., is it really a requirement to call another commenter an idiot? Has it come to that level?
But it's acceptable to lump in everyone in the public sector as lazy?

I don't go in for name calling and you're right I should have perhaps refrained. But this story was nothing to do with Christchurch council WORKERS but it didn't stop this particular poster using it as yet another opportunity to make sweeping and insulting generalisations about them so perhaps on this occasion you'll have to forgive me.
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?[/p][/quote]Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources. Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?[/p][/quote]Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."[/p][/quote]Thanks for the invitation! Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.[/p][/quote]Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society? Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe. If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening. The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.[/p][/quote]What did you say about rhetoric............ ...think about how you comment before you comment., is it really a requirement to call another commenter an idiot? Has it come to that level?[/p][/quote]But it's acceptable to lump in everyone in the public sector as lazy? I don't go in for name calling and you're right I should have perhaps refrained. But this story was nothing to do with Christchurch council WORKERS but it didn't stop this particular poster using it as yet another opportunity to make sweeping and insulting generalisations about them so perhaps on this occasion you'll have to forgive me. Baysider

5:02pm Tue 18 Feb 14

InkZ says...

Not as irresponsible as that haircut
Not as irresponsible as that haircut InkZ

5:14pm Tue 18 Feb 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Baysider wrote:
skydriver wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources.

Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?
Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."
Thanks for the invitation!
Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.
Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society?

Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe.

If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening.

The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.
What did you say about rhetoric............


...think about how you comment before you comment., is it really a requirement to call another commenter an idiot? Has it come to that level?
But it's acceptable to lump in everyone in the public sector as lazy?

I don't go in for name calling and you're right I should have perhaps refrained. But this story was nothing to do with Christchurch council WORKERS but it didn't stop this particular poster using it as yet another opportunity to make sweeping and insulting generalisations about them so perhaps on this occasion you'll have to forgive me.
How is this for a sweeping statement? I am fed up with 20% my council tax paying for local government pensions, council tax is supposed to pay for services, the only pension fund I want to pay into is my own because nobody else pays into mine. It is high time our bloated public sector was bought into the real world!
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?[/p][/quote]Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources. Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?[/p][/quote]Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."[/p][/quote]Thanks for the invitation! Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.[/p][/quote]Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society? Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe. If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening. The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.[/p][/quote]What did you say about rhetoric............ ...think about how you comment before you comment., is it really a requirement to call another commenter an idiot? Has it come to that level?[/p][/quote]But it's acceptable to lump in everyone in the public sector as lazy? I don't go in for name calling and you're right I should have perhaps refrained. But this story was nothing to do with Christchurch council WORKERS but it didn't stop this particular poster using it as yet another opportunity to make sweeping and insulting generalisations about them so perhaps on this occasion you'll have to forgive me.[/p][/quote]How is this for a sweeping statement? I am fed up with 20% my council tax paying for local government pensions, council tax is supposed to pay for services, the only pension fund I want to pay into is my own because nobody else pays into mine. It is high time our bloated public sector was bought into the real world! The-Bleeding-Obvious

5:50pm Tue 18 Feb 14

sundaydriver says...

Whoops - has the right to free speech not been extended to the good councillor then?
Whoops - has the right to free speech not been extended to the good councillor then? sundaydriver

5:57pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Old Colonial says...

ranger_bob wrote:
Keffect wrote:
skydriver wrote:
The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks.
Yet another of his many gaffs.
When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch.
Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .
We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good.
It's called democracy. The 33% took the opportunity to exercise their democratic right and as such they then got the right to elect whichever councillor they wish. The 67% who didn't vote are the ones who probably complain the loudest on here, yet couldn't be bothered to get off their backsides and spend 5 mintues exercising the vote!
There will be no real choice until we are allowed a box to tick labelled "None of the above" on ballot papers. The current option of 'spoiling' a ballot paper has no effect, witness the extremely high numbers of them across the country during the PCC elections.
[quote][p][bold]ranger_bob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keffect[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: The only pathetic person here is Nottage the trouble with him is he opens his mouth before he thinks. Yet another of his many gaffs. When will this man know when he should leave office..he is walking disaster zone and is a real liability to the people of Christchurch. Let's get him out PLEASE. before he does any more damage .[/p][/quote]We need to get the 67% of people who did not vote last time voting, rather than the Blue Rinse Brigade. As a 40+ who has lived & worked in Christchurch all my life it breaks my heart to see the way consecutive conservative councils have raped our community for their own good.[/p][/quote]It's called democracy. The 33% took the opportunity to exercise their democratic right and as such they then got the right to elect whichever councillor they wish. The 67% who didn't vote are the ones who probably complain the loudest on here, yet couldn't be bothered to get off their backsides and spend 5 mintues exercising the vote![/p][/quote]There will be no real choice until we are allowed a box to tick labelled "None of the above" on ballot papers. The current option of 'spoiling' a ballot paper has no effect, witness the extremely high numbers of them across the country during the PCC elections. Old Colonial

6:07pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Gonetothebeach says...

It all sounds to me as if Christchurch Council should spend a little time and effort on a regular basis proactively publicising the genuinely good things that happen in the borough rather than always finding themselves on the back foot responding to criticism. They do appear to the average reader to be inept. The media are nearly always as happy to print positive human interest pieces as to relish bad news but you do need to feed them some good leads.
And yes, let's hear it for all those people - private, public and voluntary sector - who've been out in all manner of ghastly weather providing services to the rest of us! I would be very happy to read some of these stories.
It all sounds to me as if Christchurch Council should spend a little time and effort on a regular basis proactively publicising the genuinely good things that happen in the borough rather than always finding themselves on the back foot responding to criticism. They do appear to the average reader to be inept. The media are nearly always as happy to print positive human interest pieces as to relish bad news but you do need to feed them some good leads. And yes, let's hear it for all those people - private, public and voluntary sector - who've been out in all manner of ghastly weather providing services to the rest of us! I would be very happy to read some of these stories. Gonetothebeach

6:41pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Justin Black says...

Councillor Nottage, the "current" Leader of Christchurch Borough Council, appears to have allegedly succeeded in doing more damage to Christchurch than Henry VIII did in 1539.
At the time of his election campaigns he promised his voters he would never sell off Christchurch, and he has done just that. I don't believe one word he says about the Druitt Gardens trees.

As each day dawns, you increase the number of votes UKIP will secure at the next local elections.
Councillor Nottage, the "current" Leader of Christchurch Borough Council, appears to have allegedly succeeded in doing more damage to Christchurch than Henry VIII did in 1539. At the time of his election campaigns he promised his voters he would never sell off Christchurch, and he has done just that. I don't believe one word he says about the Druitt Gardens trees. As each day dawns, you increase the number of votes UKIP will secure at the next local elections. Justin Black

6:58pm Tue 18 Feb 14

JohnGS says...

It seems that Councillor Nottage did not see the flood damage at the flats in Conifer Close on Christmas Day and the water still lapping at the River side of the building . Most of the residents are over seventy five and sons of one owner where busy trying ways to stop the flooding and dumping all the damages furniture. These worked continues for days bringing some sandbags purchased from building merchants but needed many more and asked help from the council . The Council said they would SELL then some at thirty pounds for four. Not being a technical officer on floods the name Floodsack and sandbags do the same job but still cost thirty pounds for pack of four.
This seemed a money grabbing scheme by the Council.
The tenants of the flats had asked the local MP to visit and ask for hid help but again in mid February still no sight of him.
Any way the language Councillor Notige uses is not what you expect and he should look after his blood pressure .
The local MP and Councillor Notage will be knocking on doors asking people to vote for them but I hope the residents don't use the type of language Mr Notage seems to use.
I will leave the tree felling in Christchurch park for a later date.
It seems that Councillor Nottage did not see the flood damage at the flats in Conifer Close on Christmas Day and the water still lapping at the River side of the building . Most of the residents are over seventy five and sons of one owner where busy trying ways to stop the flooding and dumping all the damages furniture. These worked continues for days bringing some sandbags purchased from building merchants but needed many more and asked help from the council . The Council said they would SELL then some at thirty pounds for four. Not being a technical officer on floods the name Floodsack and sandbags do the same job but still cost thirty pounds for pack of four. This seemed a money grabbing scheme by the Council. The tenants of the flats had asked the local MP to visit and ask for hid help but again in mid February still no sight of him. Any way the language Councillor Notige uses is not what you expect and he should look after his blood pressure . The local MP and Councillor Notage will be knocking on doors asking people to vote for them but I hope the residents don't use the type of language Mr Notage seems to use. I will leave the tree felling in Christchurch park for a later date. JohnGS

7:21pm Tue 18 Feb 14

kangman2012 says...

Simple really - just another money-grabbing Tory-led council looking to profit from their residents misery. How much longer are people going to allow such blatant profiteering from councillors who are obviously "one sandwich short of a picnic" and as such not fit to be in such positions of power. Vote the lot of them out at the next election and propose local people with real passion and concern for the local area and it's people. For sure Nottage is not, and is simply just another greedy councillor with a low IQ, which explains his very limited ability to interact with the people and institutions within his conurbation. Get rid, and soon!
Simple really - just another money-grabbing Tory-led council looking to profit from their residents misery. How much longer are people going to allow such blatant profiteering from councillors who are obviously "one sandwich short of a picnic" and as such not fit to be in such positions of power. Vote the lot of them out at the next election and propose local people with real passion and concern for the local area and it's people. For sure Nottage is not, and is simply just another greedy councillor with a low IQ, which explains his very limited ability to interact with the people and institutions within his conurbation. Get rid, and soon! kangman2012

7:31pm Tue 18 Feb 14

O'Reilly says...

Didn't he used to be the Sheffield United manager? Maybe not.....
Didn't he used to be the Sheffield United manager? Maybe not..... O'Reilly

8:42pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Tarquins says...

sundaydriver wrote:
Whoops - has the right to free speech not been extended to the good councillor then?
Oh ho, it's all going on in the comments page isn't it. Now, don't you good people go shouting at me but I'd like to make a comment. Here goes. When I noticed the comment referring to free speech, hasn't this government just stopped a part of it when it passed through the Lords. Now I'm sat down for any criticism as I'm taking this from my some what worn brain, sorry I'm always being to slow down. Be safe boys and girls and those not to sure! x
[quote][p][bold]sundaydriver[/bold] wrote: Whoops - has the right to free speech not been extended to the good councillor then?[/p][/quote]Oh ho, it's all going on in the comments page isn't it. Now, don't you good people go shouting at me but I'd like to make a comment. Here goes. When I noticed the comment referring to free speech, hasn't this government just stopped a part of it when it passed through the Lords. Now I'm sat down for any criticism as I'm taking this from my some what worn brain, sorry I'm always being to slow down. Be safe boys and girls and those not to sure! x Tarquins

9:20pm Tue 18 Feb 14

woby_tide says...

sundaydriver wrote:
Whoops - has the right to free speech not been extended to the good councillor then?
I think this is groundbreaking. The first time ever that the words "good councillor" and "Ray Nottage" have appeared on the same page
[quote][p][bold]sundaydriver[/bold] wrote: Whoops - has the right to free speech not been extended to the good councillor then?[/p][/quote]I think this is groundbreaking. The first time ever that the words "good councillor" and "Ray Nottage" have appeared on the same page woby_tide

9:53pm Tue 18 Feb 14

rollingpinboy says...

Why do the council always expect good publicity... when all they are doing is their duty and get paid ( far too much) for it by the public. Just don't vote Conservative next time or any time.
Why do the council always expect good publicity... when all they are doing is their duty and get paid ( far too much) for it by the public. Just don't vote Conservative next time or any time. rollingpinboy

11:28pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Yankee1 says...

'Nottage' is a name that begs for derison.

He came to Christchurch in 1999, upon retirement.

Hardly a local.
'Nottage' is a name that begs for derison. He came to Christchurch in 1999, upon retirement. Hardly a local. Yankee1

11:50pm Tue 18 Feb 14

s-pb2 says...

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
Baysider wrote:
The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote:
....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council?
Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional!
Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period?

You sir, are an idiot.
Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?
Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources.

Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?
Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."
Thanks for the invitation!
Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.
Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society?

Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe.

If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening.

The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.
You could be right, I reckon I am an idiot, I'd love to be on easy street. Working 9 to 5, retire at 60, gold plated pensions, no need to make a profit, no need to be competitive, no need to innovate...... I work on my own, in my own hi-tech engineering business, 12 hours most days, I don't have weekends because every day is the same for me and for the privilege I have to pay almost £600 a month in council tax and business rates, that is disgusting!
Nearly two thirds of money given to the council through council tax goes to social care departments. The people in those departments also regularly work 12 hours a day, they also regularly work weekends. Yet they are given inadequate facilities to work with, have a lack of support from senior staff and councillors and are expected to keep our elderly, disabled and young safe and alive, and sometimes are responsible for the well being of over 25 people young or old.

But you say they have it easy and others say they live in a fantasy world. Yet some of these people still gave up their own remaining time and volunteered to help those affected during the terrible weather, without receiving any extra pay. Maybe this is what Cllr Nottage was trying to say. Personally I know I couldnt do their job and feel much happier working in the private sector
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote: ....irresponsible to trivialise the work of the council? Compared to the number of people the council employs the amount of work it does IS trivial. In fact I'd say it was inversely proportional![/p][/quote]Pathetic and rather sad attack on the many, many people who were working extremely long hours in dreadful and dangerous conditions over the weekend making sure the public were kept safe, the damage was as limited as could be and the disruption minimal. Then comes the clear up stage. Would you rather have had Group4 in charge over the recent awful weather period? You sir, are an idiot.[/p][/quote]Calling a sandbag a floodsack is innovative?[/p][/quote]Floodsacks and sandbags ARE very different products but in either event both cost money don't they? If I recall many of the residents were demanding them on a "just in case" principle anyway so what was being advocated was effectively the council given away expensive products that might not be required for free. Great use of limited resources. Anyway, could you explain why you feel that it's fair or appropriate to **** the whole workforce of the council because of what one councillor says?[/p][/quote]Not sure what happened there, it should read "criticise the whole workforce..."[/p][/quote]Thanks for the invitation! Go to any town in this country and almost always the largest employer is local government, for decades the only growth industry, apart from the 'spiv' economy of course, has been local government.[/p][/quote]Absolute drivel but even if that were the case why does that give YOU the right to denegrade EVERYONE who works in the public sector as some sort if work shy leech in society? Public sector workers are just like everyone else, there's good and bad, but on this occasion and in fact since before Christmas lots and lots of them have been working many, many hours over and above what they get paid for and sacrificing time with their own families in order to assist the public and keep them safe. If you expect Mouchel or Serco or any of the others with their snout in government contracts to provide the same level of service when this happens again you are in for a rude awakening. The anti public sector rhetoric on here sometimes is disgusting and totally demoralising for anyone doing their best in very difficult circumstances....and you're still an idiot.[/p][/quote]You could be right, I reckon I am an idiot, I'd love to be on easy street. Working 9 to 5, retire at 60, gold plated pensions, no need to make a profit, no need to be competitive, no need to innovate...... I work on my own, in my own hi-tech engineering business, 12 hours most days, I don't have weekends because every day is the same for me and for the privilege I have to pay almost £600 a month in council tax and business rates, that is disgusting![/p][/quote]Nearly two thirds of money given to the council through council tax goes to social care departments. The people in those departments also regularly work 12 hours a day, they also regularly work weekends. Yet they are given inadequate facilities to work with, have a lack of support from senior staff and councillors and are expected to keep our elderly, disabled and young safe and alive, and sometimes are responsible for the well being of over 25 people young or old. But you say they have it easy and others say they live in a fantasy world. Yet some of these people still gave up their own remaining time and volunteered to help those affected during the terrible weather, without receiving any extra pay. Maybe this is what Cllr Nottage was trying to say. Personally I know I couldnt do their job and feel much happier working in the private sector s-pb2

7:19am Wed 19 Feb 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

You are talking lowly paid frontline and usually subcontract staff rather than the legions desk jockeys and 'fatcats' that occupy our town halls.
You are talking lowly paid frontline and usually subcontract staff rather than the legions desk jockeys and 'fatcats' that occupy our town halls. The-Bleeding-Obvious

10:53pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Shakrider says...

what about a mention for the fantastic charity volunteers from the Plymouth Brethren RRT team that worked all hours of the night to save houses from floods in Mudeford??? lets not bother with all this back stabbing lets be positive!!!!
what about a mention for the fantastic charity volunteers from the Plymouth Brethren RRT team that worked all hours of the night to save houses from floods in Mudeford??? lets not bother with all this back stabbing lets be positive!!!! Shakrider

9:35pm Thu 20 Feb 14

brian74 says...

hi if you are reading this the you know about DRUITT gardens and the cutting down of the trees by the Christchurch Panning Office.

if you agree that we need an independent inquiry then PLEASE sign this government petition.

http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/60678

thanks
hi if you are reading this the you know about DRUITT gardens and the cutting down of the trees by the Christchurch Panning Office. if you agree that we need an independent inquiry then PLEASE sign this government petition. http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/60678 thanks brian74

9:12am Fri 21 Feb 14

localratepayer says...

Yes, definitely, I will sign that petition.
Yes, definitely, I will sign that petition. localratepayer

9:20am Fri 21 Feb 14

skydriver says...

With all these comments regarding this article is there one from Nottage, no I think not he is too busy trying to work on something else he can upset the real residents of Christchurch with.
With all these comments regarding this article is there one from Nottage, no I think not he is too busy trying to work on something else he can upset the real residents of Christchurch with. skydriver

9:31am Fri 21 Feb 14

xchresident says...

Comments give the illusion of having had a say or doing something. But isn't it time people who are unhappy with this Council made their views known more effectively?
Comments give the illusion of having had a say or doing something. But isn't it time people who are unhappy with this Council made their views known more effectively? xchresident

1:42pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Dorset Logic says...

Don't worry, next month you have to start throwing £1400 quid at them again in instalments, they will go quiet again for 10 months.
Don't worry, next month you have to start throwing £1400 quid at them again in instalments, they will go quiet again for 10 months. Dorset Logic

11:08pm Fri 21 Feb 14

localratepayer says...

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH— tell the Council to LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE!

Lets let the Council know how we feel about all this. Next Council meeting is this coming Tuesday 6pm (25th) Why not make our views known to Councillors and the Press --outside the Civic Office, Bridge Street, BH23 1AZ (rear entrance) at 5:45 Tues.

If you can stay for the meeting so much the better! It's an eye-opener!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH— tell the Council to LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE! Lets let the Council know how we feel about all this. Next Council meeting is this coming Tuesday 6pm (25th) Why not make our views known to Councillors and the Press --outside the Civic Office, Bridge Street, BH23 1AZ (rear entrance) at 5:45 Tues. If you can stay for the meeting so much the better! It's an eye-opener! localratepayer

8:33pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Muddyford Mick says...

I don't often make comments here but I think the time has come when I need to say something. Christchurch was one a beautiful historic town with its own council, its own CEO, its own Civil Enforcement Officers etc. etc., and now, thanks to the arrogant Cllr Nottage and his sheep, (although not all Councillors come under the heading of sheep, it is just those who are frightened of upsetting him), our town has vanished. I have never known a Leader of CBC to be as unpopular as Councillor Nottage. His arrogant outbursts, inside and outside the Council Chamber, and his arrogant attitude to anyone person who questions, or disagrees with his policies is very unpleasant and unprofessional. It is time someone removed this guy from power before he destroys the town completely. I will definitely not vote for Chope at next years elections, and I hope the residents of Purewell and Stanpit will do the right thing when Councillor Nottage seeks re-election.
I think UKIP stand a very good chance of having local Councillors elected next year.
I don't often make comments here but I think the time has come when I need to say something. Christchurch was one a beautiful historic town with its own council, its own CEO, its own Civil Enforcement Officers etc. etc., and now, thanks to the arrogant Cllr Nottage and his sheep, (although not all Councillors come under the heading of sheep, it is just those who are frightened of upsetting him), our town has vanished. I have never known a Leader of CBC to be as unpopular as Councillor Nottage. His arrogant outbursts, inside and outside the Council Chamber, and his arrogant attitude to anyone person who questions, or disagrees with his policies is very unpleasant and unprofessional. It is time someone removed this guy from power before he destroys the town completely. I will definitely not vote for Chope at next years elections, and I hope the residents of Purewell and Stanpit will do the right thing when Councillor Nottage seeks re-election. I think UKIP stand a very good chance of having local Councillors elected next year. Muddyford Mick

8:40pm Sat 22 Feb 14

xchresident says...

Why not come to the council meeting Tues 25th 6pm? I you come early you can make your point on the steps of the rear entrance. The point has been made above--
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. the Council must LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE!
Why not come to the council meeting Tues 25th 6pm? I you come early you can make your point on the steps of the rear entrance. The point has been made above-- ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. the Council must LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE! xchresident

6:55pm Sun 23 Feb 14

DUCKFEEDER says...

i got so fed up with the way xchurch council was being run that i left the town i was born in,that was 20yrs ago and it still hasn't changed, i still hear the same complaints, you have the right to a vote use it or stop complaining, it is that simple
i got so fed up with the way xchurch council was being run that i left the town i was born in,that was 20yrs ago and it still hasn't changed, i still hear the same complaints, you have the right to a vote use it or stop complaining, it is that simple DUCKFEEDER

7:43pm Mon 24 Feb 14

agp1337 says...

Muddyford Mick wrote:
I don't often make comments here but I think the time has come when I need to say something. Christchurch was one a beautiful historic town with its own council, its own CEO, its own Civil Enforcement Officers etc. etc., and now, thanks to the arrogant Cllr Nottage and his sheep, (although not all Councillors come under the heading of sheep, it is just those who are frightened of upsetting him), our town has vanished. I have never known a Leader of CBC to be as unpopular as Councillor Nottage. His arrogant outbursts, inside and outside the Council Chamber, and his arrogant attitude to anyone person who questions, or disagrees with his policies is very unpleasant and unprofessional. It is time someone removed this guy from power before he destroys the town completely. I will definitely not vote for Chope at next years elections, and I hope the residents of Purewell and Stanpit will do the right thing when Councillor Nottage seeks re-election.
I think UKIP stand a very good chance of having local Councillors elected next year.
Spot the latest outburst on his blog! The one beginning 'All is calm the community' . Very unpleasant.
[quote][p][bold]Muddyford Mick[/bold] wrote: I don't often make comments here but I think the time has come when I need to say something. Christchurch was one a beautiful historic town with its own council, its own CEO, its own Civil Enforcement Officers etc. etc., and now, thanks to the arrogant Cllr Nottage and his sheep, (although not all Councillors come under the heading of sheep, it is just those who are frightened of upsetting him), our town has vanished. I have never known a Leader of CBC to be as unpopular as Councillor Nottage. His arrogant outbursts, inside and outside the Council Chamber, and his arrogant attitude to anyone person who questions, or disagrees with his policies is very unpleasant and unprofessional. It is time someone removed this guy from power before he destroys the town completely. I will definitely not vote for Chope at next years elections, and I hope the residents of Purewell and Stanpit will do the right thing when Councillor Nottage seeks re-election. I think UKIP stand a very good chance of having local Councillors elected next year.[/p][/quote]Spot the latest outburst on his blog! The one beginning 'All is calm the community' [sic]. Very unpleasant. agp1337

7:11am Thu 27 Feb 14

Phixer says...

JohnGS wrote:
It seems that Councillor Nottage did not see the flood damage at the flats in Conifer Close on Christmas Day and the water still lapping at the River side of the building . Most of the residents are over seventy five and sons of one owner where busy trying ways to stop the flooding and dumping all the damages furniture. These worked continues for days bringing some sandbags purchased from building merchants but needed many more and asked help from the council . The Council said they would SELL then some at thirty pounds for four. Not being a technical officer on floods the name Floodsack and sandbags do the same job but still cost thirty pounds for pack of four.
This seemed a money grabbing scheme by the Council.
The tenants of the flats had asked the local MP to visit and ask for hid help but again in mid February still no sight of him.
Any way the language Councillor Notige uses is not what you expect and he should look after his blood pressure .
The local MP and Councillor Notage will be knocking on doors asking people to vote for them but I hope the residents don't use the type of language Mr Notage seems to use.
I will leave the tree felling in Christchurch park for a later date.
If thewinds blow a tile from my roof, can I expect the council to provide - at taxpayer expense - another tile?

If the wind blows down a tree from the public pavement, can I expect the council to repair the damage at taxpayer expense?

The answer to these is insurance. Anyone living somewhere prone to flooding - even if a rare event - should have a plan for precautions.

We have to get away from this idea that taxpayers - you, me, your neighbours, our families - should pay tax to help certain individuals because of their life-choice of where and how to live.
[quote][p][bold]JohnGS[/bold] wrote: It seems that Councillor Nottage did not see the flood damage at the flats in Conifer Close on Christmas Day and the water still lapping at the River side of the building . Most of the residents are over seventy five and sons of one owner where busy trying ways to stop the flooding and dumping all the damages furniture. These worked continues for days bringing some sandbags purchased from building merchants but needed many more and asked help from the council . The Council said they would SELL then some at thirty pounds for four. Not being a technical officer on floods the name Floodsack and sandbags do the same job but still cost thirty pounds for pack of four. This seemed a money grabbing scheme by the Council. The tenants of the flats had asked the local MP to visit and ask for hid help but again in mid February still no sight of him. Any way the language Councillor Notige uses is not what you expect and he should look after his blood pressure . The local MP and Councillor Notage will be knocking on doors asking people to vote for them but I hope the residents don't use the type of language Mr Notage seems to use. I will leave the tree felling in Christchurch park for a later date.[/p][/quote]If thewinds blow a tile from my roof, can I expect the council to provide - at taxpayer expense - another tile? If the wind blows down a tree from the public pavement, can I expect the council to repair the damage at taxpayer expense? The answer to these is insurance. Anyone living somewhere prone to flooding - even if a rare event - should have a plan for precautions. We have to get away from this idea that taxpayers - you, me, your neighbours, our families - should pay tax to help certain individuals because of their life-choice of where and how to live. Phixer

6:38pm Tue 11 Mar 14

the_voice_of_reason says...

Accusing the Echo “You published inaccurate information which I think pulled the council into disrepute.” is laughable,

Sorry, but I think the Councillors and Council officials manage to do that all by themselves!
Accusing the Echo “You published inaccurate information which I think pulled the council into disrepute.” is laughable, Sorry, but I think the Councillors and Council officials manage to do that all by themselves! the_voice_of_reason

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree