howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
finally got around to reading this weeks dover express.
the leading letter was from our roger.
what does the team think about his comments?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#2
Accurate: The Priory Forum has blown its cover as no more than a Labour Party front organisation. It no longer has any credability as a Community Group...
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
i would disagree with you there barry, i was a member for a long period, and i know that the workers there are not politically oriented.
it seems sad that a newsletter is issued that has alienated the local community.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#4
Thanks for putting this topic up Howard, it was one of the things I meant to get around to but time beat me. Yes for those who dont know...RogerW wrote a letter to the Dover Express about the political positioning of Priory Forum. Roger was delivering leaflets happily, as the Priory Forum is supposed to be non political, but half way through delivering these leaflets he noticed that at the bottom of the page it said printed by the Labour Party.
Our Keef ( Keith Sansum) is chairman of this Priory Forum but always insists that its non-political. This 'printed by the labour party' line upset Roger enough to push him into writing to the newspaper xpressing disgruntlement at the situation.
But I cannot see what the fuss is about. Knowing Keefs skill on technical matters, buying a cartridge and a printer and running the leaflet off that way, as Roger suggests, would be tooo much for our Keef. So if someone stepped up to the plate and offered to print it for him than I can see why he would jump at it.
Its all about content, if the content of the newsletter is non political then even if the right wing Tory press print it, well it just wouldnt matter. The content is the thing.
Terry Nunn
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,321
#5
Surely the real point is not only being non-politcal but being seen to be so.
Even the slightest whiff of endorsement or sponsorship (and I'm not saying that it was sponsored but it could be viewed as such) is best avoided.
In a non-political group it is surely naive to let it happen.
Terry
ps I don't sit on the fence, I just openly distrust ALL politicians.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#6
Credability and being seen to be non-political is important for a Community Group. As soon as I picked up that leaflet I spotted the Labour endorsement and it went straigjt in the bin unread.
It may at best only be naive. It might just have been stupidity or it could have simply expressed a direct political preference. I suspect all three played a part....
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#7
Well whatever Keefs motives were in having the leaflet printed gratis by the Labour Party (I believe he did it for no other reason than someone offered a helping hand) it appears to have upset a large number of people which is a shame.I would offer to type and print them myself except I am off on my travels again a week on Tuesday but surely a non aligned non political non sexual... whatever on the forum could help poor old Keef with his next batch by offering to knock these leaflets out for him.I will gladly pay for the printer ink....
..
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#8
The Priory Forum has enough money in its bank account to pay for printing it - 2 reams of paper (1000 sheets) can be bought at the supermarket at Whitfield for £1.74 each and DRT technologies who advertise on here and are members of the Loyalty Scheme (and who give a discount on printer cartridges), so there was no reason why it could not have been printed "in-house" - probably for less than £10.
I hadn't even started delivering it, Keith brought them round to me and in all good faith I was happy to deliver it - until I read that bit on the first page (of two) about thanking the Labour Party for printing it.
I wouldn't dream of asking the Conservative Party to print it - the whole point of the PF is that it is SUPPOSED to be non-political, but in reality, is so obviously not.
Many people have called me via phone calls and emails to say they agree with the letter; they have advised me that their main problem with the PF its its apparant secrecy - dates of meetings are not published to the outside world, minutes are not put on the website, the general public around the Priory part of the ward don't know about it, or where meetings are held, or even what they stand for - now they know.
I believe the Constitution of the PF says that the Chairman/deputy/treasurer/secretary has to live and/or work in the Priory part of the ward.
I didn't have any input to the Newsletter, although I did want to, but just couldn't get round to it; I have no idea who approved the content, or who authorised the printing of it. the only person people could contact was Keith; the 2 District Councillors (Marian Munt and myself) and the Town Councillor (Sheila Amos), nor the Secretary or Treasurer, were named as contact people.
I do support the aims of the Forum, but it has lost its way; it needs to know what it wants to do - where it wants to go and how to get there.
The last person that I can remember who fell out with the PF was Secret Squirrel - Sarah and she was excluded, so I'd best stop here.
Roger
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#9
The trouble is Marek, I really don't think that it was just 'cos someone offered to pay for it - how would they know it was going to be printed, unless Keith told them ?
I don't believe or think it was naivity either.
Roger
Terry Nunn- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,321
#10
I was being polite Roger!
Terry
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#11
You're always polite Terry - even when you're angry (do you get angry ?) you're still polite.
I am a Councillor, but I wouldn't call myself a politician, I'm too politically naive, even when pooped on, I don't retaliate.
Roger