howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
funny how they are so important yet the leader and chairman of the district council are quite willing to post here and explain decisions where needed.
not forgetting roger a current councillor and keith who always posted when he was a district and county councillor.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
right then boys and girls iv just spoken to gordon on this very issue,
he tells me at no time has he ever said of those killed in action should not go up on the monument.
what he has said is you do have to draw the line as to what names go on the monument
and he is clear that anyone from dover KILLED IN ACTION should go on there
but what hes concerned about is others such as a shop keeper not involved on the front line but being killed maybe should not go on there.
to clarify the whole situation gordon immediatly set up a meeting with the project to set out a criteria for dover people killed in action.
gordon also stated those killed in action(as he served in the army himself) is very close to his heart, so much so he gave the project dosh in the past from his members pot.
hope this helps,,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Not really Keith ,
If he really wants to put it to bed he should email in a direct response not rely on his representative , in my opinion
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
well sarah
i can only explan as he tells me
and the full answers are all there
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
No , your words are there . Is he too busy to compose an email ?
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
hes not in dover at this time
thus asked me to relay the info
looks like no matter what is said to rebuke the info some won't be happy
whether there was any truth in the original posting or not
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
No doubt when he gets back he will attempt to fit it into his schedule , seeing as you state this all started when his words where misrepresented I am certain that he wouldnt want that to happen again
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
seems there was some truth then keith.
maggies considers people that died from ammunition factory disasters as worthy which most would agree with.
then we have ambulance drivers that went out when the bombs were falling and other rescue workers.
they will be snubbed in future.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
sarah
thats rather a sad comment
and i can see now why politicians from all parties are very wary of not posting
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Re post 70 That is your opinion and you are entitled to it
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I certainly am and will always give
as you are to
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 652- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 595
Sorry I have not been on to post, but have been in hospital,it is as Gordon says,, some names put forward are civillians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, one being a mate of mine, not old enough to fight but killed by the enemy action, the war memorial is for those fallen on active service, etc, yes it would be nice to have everybody included on the memorial, but the memorial is only so big, and would not be able to take all, room must be left also for those still in conflict, I am sure that when we meet with the Memorial Project, an alternative solution can be sought.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"Mayfield Road resident Brian Sayer has described the decision as disrespectful and upsetting after spending several years researching his uncle, Sergeant John Hulse, and his involvement with the RAF in the Second World War.
Mr Sayer, 73, told the Express: "I couldn't believe it when I received the letter to tell me my uncle, a Dover man born and bred, would not be named on the memorial."
This whole thing gets curiouser and curiouser. Had the original intent been to memorialise the 'Glorious Dead' whose bodies were not interred in home soil, all well and good. But, it states plainly the Memorial is to those who gave their lives for their country in (only) the two World Wars. [The prominence/significance of the Military Insignia may well make plain that this is for the personnel of the armed services alone, again all well and good.]
But to include armed services personnel from later conflicts while refusing to include the uncle of the chap above (Sergeant John Hulse) is most odd.
I have never been in the armed services and I am not big on War Memorials built and maintained for their own sake. [The one near me (WWI) is in the foyer of the purpose built Public Library]
But, the upkeep and addition to such memorials is an integral cost of warfare. If those who give their lives are not worthy, don't send them out to kill and be killed in the first place.
I suspect that the real living importance and significance of such memorials is for the local 'worthies' to big themselves up. (sorry for the vernacular)
My own father was RAF ground crew. The mere thought that he and his fellows were not worthy...while I am not too gentlemanly to comment...I choose not to.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Thankyou sheila
and well put
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
It was the reported quote that included the word "Worthy" that appears so offensive but Im sure Gordon will be anxious to correct that as soon as he is back in Dover .
Why are you repeatedly ignoring what Sarah has said, Keith? May I point out that wherever Cowan is he has access, I am sure, to the internet, on which this forum is published. This is an issue that matters, and whatever he, or others, say, as the wriggling continues, offence has been caused, deep offence. Keiths clinging to an excuse for a mates behaviour is irritating to say the least.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
mr hulse clearly fits the criteria as he died in conflict so the decision has to be changed.
cannot say about the other 27 as we do not know any details.
We do, however, know that at least one decision was made that was so clearly and obviously wrong that it deserves explanation. It throws into question the entire decision making process, and competence, of those involved.