Mark Yates' private back op saga: the full story

Chief fire officer Mark Yates: paid the cash back

Chief fire officer Mark Yates: paid the cash back

First published in News
Last updated
Malvern Gazette: Tom Edwards by , Political Reporter

THE county's top fire chief has paid back the controversial £3,000 for his private back operation.

Mark Yates has returned the money to the public purse after admitting it upset taxpayers, disappointed his own staff and could "harm the reputation of the fire service".

On a day of dramatic developments yesterday, your Worcester News can also reveal:

- The four councillors who made the decision were pre-warned by the fire service before their vote that no money would be saved from it

- They were also pre-warned by a legal adviser that it would "create a precedent" as no fire service worker had been given taxpayers' cash for private medical treatment before

- Mr Yates emailed the fire service nearly one month before he was paid, telling them he intended to go private even if he did not get a penny from taxpayers, due to the "degree of pain" he was suffering

- The full email, which was sent on September 25, said he wanted to "merely ask the question" about claiming it back and would accept whatever was decided

- Both the email Mr Yates sent and a prepared briefing sheet for the four councillors, listing the pros and cons of saying yes or no, has now been published by the fire service

As your Worcester News exclusively revealed on Monday, March 24 Mr Yates, who earns £122,000 a year, had the back surgery in October after deciding to bypass NHS waiting lists, paying £5,090 for it.

He asked the fire authority to pay towards his bill on expenses, and on Monday, October 21, 20 days after the surgery, he got £3,000.

The meeting involved just four of the fire authority's 25 councillors, it was not minuted and the rest of the members were not told.

After it came to light in a Freedom of Information request from your Worcester News, the fire service claimed it saved money.

Councillor Derek Prodger, one of the four who was in the meeting, said the NHS wait could have been up to 12 weeks, and another officer would have therefore required extra payments to cover Mr Yates' duties.

A statement was put out in Cllr Prodger's name saying it "saved the authority £8,500 in payments to other staff" but that has now been contradicted by yesterday's developments.

Cllr Prodger did not return calls from your Worcester News yesterday.

Mr Yates said: "It has become apparent the payment I received has left some staff and members of the public disappointed.

"It was never my intention to cause such feelings and I do not wish for this matter to cause further controversy and potentially harm the great reputation of the service - I have therefore repaid the £3,000."

Mark Yates on why he returned the money

MARK Yates has finally broken his silence over his back surgery saga - saying he decided to go private after finding it "impossible to function".

The county's chief fire officer has released a statement saying the public uproar since we revealed the payment led in part to his u-turn.

It also emerged yesterday that his operation took place at Worcester's Spire South Bank Hospital.

By September last year he went to see a surgeon who told him he was suffering a ruptured disc in his lower back.

Mr Yates said: "Over the course of the last week a great deal of media coverage and public debate has been given to the fire authority's decision to contribute towards an operation I required last year.

"Up until now I have refrained from making any comment on this matter because to do so would require me to reveal confidential details of my personal health, and because I did not think it appropriate to comment on a decision taken by my employer relating to me.

"However, the best interests of the service are always at the forefront of my mind and actions, and I believe this issue is now detracting from the great work the service and all its staff do on a daily basis.

"Last September as a result of a prolapsed and ruptured disc in my lower back, and over a period of time, it became impossible for me to function from a professional and personal perspective.

"On advice of a consultant orthopaedic surgeon the best option available to me was to have corrective surgery, the removal of part of one of my vertebral discs.

"At that time the service was in the middle of some difficult issues, including periods of strike action, possible collaborative working with Warwickshire and consulting on the service's community risk management plan including a fire cover review.

"I chose to have the operation undertaken privately because I was in severe pain but the authority also benefitted from this as it minimised the time I was away from my duties leading the service and advising the authority."

He went on to say after the operation, on Tuesday, October 1, he was off sick for three days and then spent 17 days working from home on a modified schedule.

He returned to full duties on Monday, October 21, which is when the secret decision was made to pay him.

Mr Yates added: "As permitted by the conditions of service for alI uniformed staff I asked whether the authority would consider making a contribution towards these medical costs.

"However, it has become apparent the payment I received has left some staff and members of the public disappointed.

"It was never my intention to cause such feelings and I do not wish for this matter to cause further controversy and potentially harm the great reputation of the service - I have therefore repaid the £3,000."

He also said he wants to "bring this matter to an end".

Calls for Derek Prodger to resign

THE county's fire authority chairman is facing calls for his resignation - as well as the other two councillors who made the decision.

Councillor Richard Udall, Labour group leader on the authority, says he is "very concerned about the reputation of the fire service" and wants someone else in charge.

He also says independent Councillor David Taylor and Brigadier Peter Jones should also quit.

During the private meeting Cllr Udall was the only one to record his vote against the decision.

"I'm very concerned about the reputation of the fire service and don't believe Derek Prodger should be at the helm of it," he said.

"The other group leaders who also supported the decision were wrong to do so.

"I hope they will now understand the public anger and frustration their decision caused. "They now need to consider their own response to the situation they caused."

Cllr Udall also said Mr Yates still has his "full support", despite calling his expenses claim "a serious mistake".

"He has and will continue to have my full support, he does a difficult job in very difficult times," he said.

"However the decision to help pay for his operation was a serious mistake.

"The decision to repay the money is the one right one and I pay tribute to Mark Yates for his decision, he has done the right thing."

Cllr Taylor admitted for the first time he was involved in the decision yesterday, after nearly two weeks of denying any memory of it.

He said: "I remember very well what was said at that meeting, but I don't want to get involved.

"It was a private and confidential matter and I have no intention of ever talking about it. If other people want to talk, they can talk."

Cllr Jones said he was "surprised" Mr Yates paid the money back, and also rejected the attacks on him.

"Look, we know it probably wasn't the best way to make that decision, which is why the procedures are being changed so it won't happen again," he said.

"It looks much worse than it actually is."

Steve Gould, Fire Brigades Union secretary for Worcestershire said: "Mark Yates has done the right thing here, he's seen the public opinion.

"It was naive for him to have asked for it in the first place.

"It's damaged the fire service's reputation, no question.

"But hopefully paying it back will undo some of the damage."

Cllr Prodger did not respond to calls from your Worcester News.

So what DID happen in that private meeting?

FULL details of exactly what happened during the infamous secret meeting can today be revealed - after the fire service decided to publish a confidential briefing paper handed to councillors.

On Monday, October 21 four senior fire authority members voted 3-1 to hand Mr Yates £3,000.

During the debate, which was not minuted, they were handed a sheet of pros and cons prepared by an in-house adviser.

It clearly stated that whatever decision they came to, no money would be saved as Mr Yates' operation had already happened.

The sheet, labelled 'confidential', says the NHS wait would likely have been "approximately" 8-10 weeks, rather than the 12 Cllr Derek Prodger referred to last week.

It then says "however, Mark decided to have the operation privately", costing £5,090 and that the chief fire officer wants the authority to "pay for or contribute towards" the bill.

It says the "request was made before the operation was carried out", with an email going from Mr Yates to his staff requesting expenses for it on Wednesday, September 25.

The entire email has also been published, where Mr Yates says he is "effectively housebound" and unable to sit in a car.

He told the service he went to see a consultant surgeon, who told him he needed surgery due to a ruptured disc in his lower back that was getting progressively worse.

He says the surgeon put him on an NHS waiting list, but he was told a "minimum wait" is eight to 10 weeks.

Mr Yates then said due to the massive pressures at the fire service at that time, including the need to make £4 million of cuts, possible strike action and work to collaborate with Warwickshire, he wanted to get back quicker.

He wrote "I am always honest and transparent, especially about money matters so I need to say that come what may I will be going private as I cannot take this pain and dis-functionality for 10 weeks or more", and "nor should the service".

He then says: "I will merely ask the question and accept whatever answer comes back to me."

After the operation he had three sick days and another 17 days working from home before returning to work on Monday, October 21 - the day of the private meeting about paying him.

In September he was also known to be working from home, saying in the email he was on drugs to combat some of the pain.

Cllr Prodger left a note on the fire service's website yesterday saying he had given it "proper consideration".

But the list of cons shows his explanation of last week, where he released a statement claiming it "saved the authority £8,500 in payments to other staff" is incorrect.

The listed pros and cons were as follows:

PROS

- As a result of paying privately Mr Yates would be back at work "8-10 weeks sooner than would otherwise have been the case"

- There is a "compelling argument to having him back at work as soon as possible", citing pressures like the budget cuts and collaboration with Warwickshire - He has "a unique leadership role within the organisation"

- Officers have "previously assumed private medical treatment was something we were prepared to consider in appropriate cases", although it says there is no formal policy for it

- Had he waited for NHS treatment, "the cost of paying an honoraria for officers to 'act up'" would have been £8,500

CONS

- The fire service has not paid for private medical treatment in the past for staff - This would "therefore create a precedent, we would need to apply the same criteria in any future cases"

- He had already "decided to have the operation privately, regardless of whether the authority would pay for it" due to his pain - The "benefits and savings associated for private treatment will therefore be achieved anyway"

- There is a "potential for adverse publicity"

- You would be "creating a precedent in favour of a senior manager"

- You would be "making a payment at the same time as consulting on possible station closures"

- It also mentions "appropriateness of a public authority paying for private medical treatment" as a final concern

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:24pm Thu 3 Apr 14

brooksider says...

Well done to the Worcester News for pursuing the facts in this case.
It is clear Worcestershire, and Herefordshire, taxpayers are poorly served by certain Councillors and their poor decision making.
Well done to the Worcester News for pursuing the facts in this case. It is clear Worcestershire, and Herefordshire, taxpayers are poorly served by certain Councillors and their poor decision making. brooksider
  • Score: 18

9:32pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Small Town says...

I've got to feel for this man, this is a disgrace.

Mr Yates, who, suffering significant back pain which was affecting him fulfilling to his best a critical public role, has been made to pay for treatment that was being deliverer through private healthcare simply to get him back to doing his work for the community, leading teams saving lives, as quickly as possible.

£3000. Hardly a significant sum in the budget of the fire service, and yet this tiny amount of money, meant that a senior responsible chief was able to continue in his role with only a very minimal interruption. For me, lives saved are worth more than £3k, but then not everyone thinks this way clearly.
I've got to feel for this man, this is a disgrace. Mr Yates, who, suffering significant back pain which was affecting him fulfilling to his best a critical public role, has been made to pay for treatment that was being deliverer through private healthcare simply to get him back to doing his work for the community, leading teams saving lives, as quickly as possible. £3000. Hardly a significant sum in the budget of the fire service, and yet this tiny amount of money, meant that a senior responsible chief was able to continue in his role with only a very minimal interruption. For me, lives saved are worth more than £3k, but then not everyone thinks this way clearly. Small Town
  • Score: -13

12:39am Fri 4 Apr 14

Jabbadad says...

Jabbadad says.. apologies but I have moved this posting to the new debate I hope..

Of course the 4 Councillors involved should resign, and are we expected to think that leaders Geraghty and Hardman knew nothing of this, NOT ON YOUR LIFE.
And without the Worcester News forcing this infomation out by the Freedom Of Information Act this would have been a very successful old pals act carried out by 4 Tory councillors spending public money BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
And these actions would have also occured if there hadn't been a public outcry about the cuts to supporting peoples services for the disabled and Elderly, again with 3 Tory Councilors to again meet to make decisions BEHIND CLOSED DOORS in Private, having refused offers of independant observers.
Do we have a democracy or do we have a Tory Secret Society?
What else has been decided BEHIND CLOSED DOORS in private?
Were all the Tory Councilors aware of these happenings?
Roll on the Elections.
Jabbadad says.. apologies but I have moved this posting to the new debate I hope.. Of course the 4 Councillors involved should resign, and are we expected to think that leaders Geraghty and Hardman knew nothing of this, NOT ON YOUR LIFE. And without the Worcester News forcing this infomation out by the Freedom Of Information Act this would have been a very successful old pals act carried out by 4 Tory councillors spending public money BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. And these actions would have also occured if there hadn't been a public outcry about the cuts to supporting peoples services for the disabled and Elderly, again with 3 Tory Councilors to again meet to make decisions BEHIND CLOSED DOORS in Private, having refused offers of independant observers. Do we have a democracy or do we have a Tory Secret Society? What else has been decided BEHIND CLOSED DOORS in private? Were all the Tory Councilors aware of these happenings? Roll on the Elections. Jabbadad
  • Score: 10

7:21am Fri 4 Apr 14

denon says...

The four councillors should be named
The four councillors should be named denon
  • Score: 3

7:48am Fri 4 Apr 14

Merlin123 says...

This greedy man seeks public sympathy now, worried about the harm it causes to the Fire Service, shame on him for asking in the first place, the shame is his and his alone, how dare he now try to take any moral high ground.
And to try and shift the blame onto the people that approved it is arrogant in the extreme, had he not asked for the money, there would have been no decision to make.
I hope now that every firefighter, that's the operational ones that the community cannot really do without, the ones who turn up and put the fires out, cut people from the wreckage of cars, put their lives on the line every day, put in claims for every last penny that their health care is costing them, and see what the response is from the councillors; will there be more secret meetings and non publicised payments, I think not.
£122 000 per annum, the poor man, let's have a whip round shall we, maybe we can get enough to send him on a holiday to recuperate from the pain and suffering he has had to endure since he has been caught out!
This greedy man seeks public sympathy now, worried about the harm it causes to the Fire Service, shame on him for asking in the first place, the shame is his and his alone, how dare he now try to take any moral high ground. And to try and shift the blame onto the people that approved it is arrogant in the extreme, had he not asked for the money, there would have been no decision to make. I hope now that every firefighter, that's the operational ones that the community cannot really do without, the ones who turn up and put the fires out, cut people from the wreckage of cars, put their lives on the line every day, put in claims for every last penny that their health care is costing them, and see what the response is from the councillors; will there be more secret meetings and non publicised payments, I think not. £122 000 per annum, the poor man, let's have a whip round shall we, maybe we can get enough to send him on a holiday to recuperate from the pain and suffering he has had to endure since he has been caught out! Merlin123
  • Score: 4

8:48am Fri 4 Apr 14

CJH says...

Merlin123 wrote:
This greedy man seeks public sympathy now, worried about the harm it causes to the Fire Service, shame on him for asking in the first place, the shame is his and his alone, how dare he now try to take any moral high ground.
And to try and shift the blame onto the people that approved it is arrogant in the extreme, had he not asked for the money, there would have been no decision to make.
I hope now that every firefighter, that's the operational ones that the community cannot really do without, the ones who turn up and put the fires out, cut people from the wreckage of cars, put their lives on the line every day, put in claims for every last penny that their health care is costing them, and see what the response is from the councillors; will there be more secret meetings and non publicised payments, I think not.
£122 000 per annum, the poor man, let's have a whip round shall we, maybe we can get enough to send him on a holiday to recuperate from the pain and suffering he has had to endure since he has been caught out!
Don't blame him for asking. Blame the ones who authorised it! They didn't have to say yes did they? And I think you need to read the full report here again, you've obviously been selective in what you've taken from it. Do you have some sort of axe to grind against Mr Yates? Because it certainly looks like it. Perhaps you could tell us what it is?
[quote][p][bold]Merlin123[/bold] wrote: This greedy man seeks public sympathy now, worried about the harm it causes to the Fire Service, shame on him for asking in the first place, the shame is his and his alone, how dare he now try to take any moral high ground. And to try and shift the blame onto the people that approved it is arrogant in the extreme, had he not asked for the money, there would have been no decision to make. I hope now that every firefighter, that's the operational ones that the community cannot really do without, the ones who turn up and put the fires out, cut people from the wreckage of cars, put their lives on the line every day, put in claims for every last penny that their health care is costing them, and see what the response is from the councillors; will there be more secret meetings and non publicised payments, I think not. £122 000 per annum, the poor man, let's have a whip round shall we, maybe we can get enough to send him on a holiday to recuperate from the pain and suffering he has had to endure since he has been caught out![/p][/quote]Don't blame him for asking. Blame the ones who authorised it! They didn't have to say yes did they? And I think you need to read the full report here again, you've obviously been selective in what you've taken from it. Do you have some sort of axe to grind against Mr Yates? Because it certainly looks like it. Perhaps you could tell us what it is? CJH
  • Score: 1

8:57am Fri 4 Apr 14

brooksider says...

denon wrote:
The four councillors should be named
They are named.
Derek Prodger Chairman of the Fire Authority, Conservative, who in true Prodger form has tried to convince taxpayers that estimated figures were actual fact.
Councillor David Taylor, Independent who could not remember the meeting and thinks it's only £3,000 anyway.
Brigadier Peter Jones, Conservative who said he was on holiday in the Caribbean at the time of the meeting.
Richard Udall, Labour, was voted against the payment and has been the most transparent in this sorry tale.

As Jabbadad questions, how much did Hardman and Gereghty know?

Someone also sanctioned a mysterious in-house 'adviser' to prepare a briefing sheet.
It is a shame this 'advisor' didn't advise Derek Prodger took minutes at the meeting, especially when a meeting involves persons who's memory and grasp of facts are so poor. .
[quote][p][bold]denon[/bold] wrote: The four councillors should be named[/p][/quote]They are named. Derek Prodger Chairman of the Fire Authority, Conservative, who in true Prodger form has tried to convince taxpayers that estimated figures were actual fact. Councillor David Taylor, Independent who could not remember the meeting and thinks it's only £3,000 anyway. Brigadier Peter Jones, Conservative who said he was on holiday in the Caribbean at the time of the meeting. Richard Udall, Labour, was voted against the payment and has been the most transparent in this sorry tale. As Jabbadad questions, how much did Hardman and Gereghty know? Someone also sanctioned a mysterious in-house 'adviser' to prepare a briefing sheet. It is a shame this 'advisor' didn't advise Derek Prodger took minutes at the meeting, especially when a meeting involves persons who's memory and grasp of facts are so poor. . brooksider
  • Score: 6

8:59am Fri 4 Apr 14

High Time says...

denon wrote:
The four councillors should be named
If you read the article in full you will see all four Councillors are named. This all came out thanks to the W/N using the Freedom of Information act and not any Councillor on the Fire Authority whatever there party colours,who are now using it for political gain.
[quote][p][bold]denon[/bold] wrote: The four councillors should be named[/p][/quote]If you read the article in full you will see all four Councillors are named. This all came out thanks to the W/N using the Freedom of Information act and not any Councillor on the Fire Authority whatever there party colours,who are now using it for political gain. High Time
  • Score: 5

9:44am Fri 4 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

This is sounding more like Trumpton every day.

Are WN 100% sure the four councillors aren't called Prodger, Pugh, Barney, McGrew?
This is sounding more like Trumpton every day. Are WN 100% sure the four councillors aren't called Prodger, Pugh, Barney, McGrew? i-cycle
  • Score: 3

10:30am Fri 4 Apr 14

Merlin123 says...

CJH, I have no axe to grind with the man personally, just his moral (or lack of moral) standpoint, and I have read the full article, and chose to comment on certain points made in that article.
Of course I have selected bits to comment on, why should I have to comment on every aspect of the article?
Oh, and I do blame him for asking, actually, £122 000 per year, and he holds out the begging bowl for help, morally wrong in my opinion, which I am entitled to express.
You ask what me to explain what axe I am grinding, just because I state an opinion, yet I do not question your right to reply, last time I checked, we lived in a free country. Or maybe I should question why you are defending him, are you related, one of his officers perhaps, or even one of the mysterious group of councillors who operate behind closed doors, and in one case, can't remember even being there?
CJH, I have no axe to grind with the man personally, just his moral (or lack of moral) standpoint, and I have read the full article, and chose to comment on certain points made in that article. Of course I have selected bits to comment on, why should I have to comment on every aspect of the article? Oh, and I do blame him for asking, actually, £122 000 per year, and he holds out the begging bowl for help, morally wrong in my opinion, which I am entitled to express. You ask what me to explain what axe I am grinding, just because I state an opinion, yet I do not question your right to reply, last time I checked, we lived in a free country. Or maybe I should question why you are defending him, are you related, one of his officers perhaps, or even one of the mysterious group of councillors who operate behind closed doors, and in one case, can't remember even being there? Merlin123
  • Score: 4

10:53am Fri 4 Apr 14

CJH says...

Merlin123 wrote:
CJH, I have no axe to grind with the man personally, just his moral (or lack of moral) standpoint, and I have read the full article, and chose to comment on certain points made in that article.
Of course I have selected bits to comment on, why should I have to comment on every aspect of the article?
Oh, and I do blame him for asking, actually, £122 000 per year, and he holds out the begging bowl for help, morally wrong in my opinion, which I am entitled to express.
You ask what me to explain what axe I am grinding, just because I state an opinion, yet I do not question your right to reply, last time I checked, we lived in a free country. Or maybe I should question why you are defending him, are you related, one of his officers perhaps, or even one of the mysterious group of councillors who operate behind closed doors, and in one case, can't remember even being there?
You obviously haven't seen my comments regarding this issue have you? I have no connection to anyone in this story. Perhaps you could explain your strange comment that he has tried to shift the blame to those who authorised it? In case you don't remember what you wrote it was "And to try and shift the blame onto the people that approved it is arrogant in the extreme, had he not asked for the money, there would have been no decision to make". They didn't HAVE to give him any money. They alone sanctioned it, and now they have been caught out in a mire of lies and contradictions. You said in another comment a couple of days ago "I know from first hand experience how corrupt and self serving certain members of the Fire Service are". Certainly sounds personal to me. And if you really do have evidence of corruption then you should report it, hopefully with facts to support your claim.
[quote][p][bold]Merlin123[/bold] wrote: CJH, I have no axe to grind with the man personally, just his moral (or lack of moral) standpoint, and I have read the full article, and chose to comment on certain points made in that article. Of course I have selected bits to comment on, why should I have to comment on every aspect of the article? Oh, and I do blame him for asking, actually, £122 000 per year, and he holds out the begging bowl for help, morally wrong in my opinion, which I am entitled to express. You ask what me to explain what axe I am grinding, just because I state an opinion, yet I do not question your right to reply, last time I checked, we lived in a free country. Or maybe I should question why you are defending him, are you related, one of his officers perhaps, or even one of the mysterious group of councillors who operate behind closed doors, and in one case, can't remember even being there?[/p][/quote]You obviously haven't seen my comments regarding this issue have you? I have no connection to anyone in this story. Perhaps you could explain your strange comment that he has tried to shift the blame to those who authorised it? In case you don't remember what you wrote it was "And to try and shift the blame onto the people that approved it is arrogant in the extreme, had he not asked for the money, there would have been no decision to make". They didn't HAVE to give him any money. They alone sanctioned it, and now they have been caught out in a mire of lies and contradictions. You said in another comment a couple of days ago "I know from first hand experience how corrupt and self serving certain members of the Fire Service are". Certainly sounds personal to me. And if you really do have evidence of corruption then you should report it, hopefully with facts to support your claim. CJH
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Merlin123 says...

Oh dear CJH, you do have different set of rules for yourself, as opposed to others, don't you. May I suggest you read your own posts before criticising others'.
I did not say you had a connection, I said that maybe I should ask that question, as you had asked it of me, whilst defending the right to free speech.
My "strange" comment was very clear, Mr Yates said that he wanted to ask the question; I pointed out that had he not asked it, there would never have been an issue, nothing strange about that.
Anyone who has read my previous posts will be able to differentiate between my remarks made concerning aspects of the Fire Service that I do have knowledge of, and a personal attack on an individual.
It indicates to me quite rude to feel you have to remind me of what I wrote, "just in case I had forgotten", thanks, but I'm more than capable of remembering my own opinions.
I disagree with the content of most of your posts, whilst agreeing about the actions of the councillors concerned, I object to the manner of them, but I defend your right to express an opinion, as I would expect anyone to do for me.
Oh, and one last thing, how do you know I did not report any malfeasance that may have occurred?
Oh dear CJH, you do have different set of rules for yourself, as opposed to others, don't you. May I suggest you read your own posts before criticising others'. I did not say you had a connection, I said that maybe I should ask that question, as you had asked it of me, whilst defending the right to free speech. My "strange" comment was very clear, Mr Yates said that he wanted to ask the question; I pointed out that had he not asked it, there would never have been an issue, nothing strange about that. Anyone who has read my previous posts will be able to differentiate between my remarks made concerning aspects of the Fire Service that I do have knowledge of, and a personal attack on an individual. It indicates to me quite rude to feel you have to remind me of what I wrote, "just in case I had forgotten", thanks, but I'm more than capable of remembering my own opinions. I disagree with the content of most of your posts, whilst agreeing about the actions of the councillors concerned, I object to the manner of them, but I defend your right to express an opinion, as I would expect anyone to do for me. Oh, and one last thing, how do you know I did not report any malfeasance that may have occurred? Merlin123
  • Score: 2

2:15pm Fri 4 Apr 14

denon says...

How do we know Udal voted against if there were not any minutes? Remember he is part of the Co-operative snouts in the trough gravy train of the Rev Flowers era .
How do we know Udal voted against if there were not any minutes? Remember he is part of the Co-operative snouts in the trough gravy train of the Rev Flowers era . denon
  • Score: -5

4:39pm Fri 4 Apr 14

CJH says...

Merlin123 wrote:
Oh dear CJH, you do have different set of rules for yourself, as opposed to others, don't you. May I suggest you read your own posts before criticising others'.
I did not say you had a connection, I said that maybe I should ask that question, as you had asked it of me, whilst defending the right to free speech.
My "strange" comment was very clear, Mr Yates said that he wanted to ask the question; I pointed out that had he not asked it, there would never have been an issue, nothing strange about that.
Anyone who has read my previous posts will be able to differentiate between my remarks made concerning aspects of the Fire Service that I do have knowledge of, and a personal attack on an individual.
It indicates to me quite rude to feel you have to remind me of what I wrote, "just in case I had forgotten", thanks, but I'm more than capable of remembering my own opinions.
I disagree with the content of most of your posts, whilst agreeing about the actions of the councillors concerned, I object to the manner of them, but I defend your right to express an opinion, as I would expect anyone to do for me.
Oh, and one last thing, how do you know I did not report any malfeasance that may have occurred?
Oh dear...touched a nerve there I think.
[quote][p][bold]Merlin123[/bold] wrote: Oh dear CJH, you do have different set of rules for yourself, as opposed to others, don't you. May I suggest you read your own posts before criticising others'. I did not say you had a connection, I said that maybe I should ask that question, as you had asked it of me, whilst defending the right to free speech. My "strange" comment was very clear, Mr Yates said that he wanted to ask the question; I pointed out that had he not asked it, there would never have been an issue, nothing strange about that. Anyone who has read my previous posts will be able to differentiate between my remarks made concerning aspects of the Fire Service that I do have knowledge of, and a personal attack on an individual. It indicates to me quite rude to feel you have to remind me of what I wrote, "just in case I had forgotten", thanks, but I'm more than capable of remembering my own opinions. I disagree with the content of most of your posts, whilst agreeing about the actions of the councillors concerned, I object to the manner of them, but I defend your right to express an opinion, as I would expect anyone to do for me. Oh, and one last thing, how do you know I did not report any malfeasance that may have occurred?[/p][/quote]Oh dear...touched a nerve there I think. CJH
  • Score: -1

7:44pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Merlin123 says...

CJH, As you cannot seem to form any sort of reasoned argument, and type completely nonsensical comments, I will not respond to any further remarks that you make; I believe you are what is known as a troll, somebody whose sole aim is to antagonise a situation with no real knowledge of what you are saying or doing.
Please think carefully before responding to any further comments on this website, or any other, as your only achievement is in making yourself look foolish, and this is of no use to anyone.
CJH, As you cannot seem to form any sort of reasoned argument, and type completely nonsensical comments, I will not respond to any further remarks that you make; I believe you are what is known as a troll, somebody whose sole aim is to antagonise a situation with no real knowledge of what you are saying or doing. Please think carefully before responding to any further comments on this website, or any other, as your only achievement is in making yourself look foolish, and this is of no use to anyone. Merlin123
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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