1.95 per cent council tax increase proposed by Colchester Council

First published in News

COLCHESTER households face their first council tax hike in three years.

The authority’s coalition cabinet has revealed it intends to increase its portion of the council tax bill by 1.95 per cent.

If approved at a full council meeting next month, an average Band D ratepayer will pay an extra £3.42 a year - or 7p a week.

See Thursday's Gazette for a special report.

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:10pm Wed 9 Jan 13

micksmercs says...

God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.
God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears. micksmercs
  • Score: 0

10:10pm Wed 9 Jan 13

micksmercs says...

God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.
God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears. micksmercs
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Wed 9 Jan 13

hughie-s says...

Council Tax is made up of amounts due to Essex CC, Colchester BC, Essex Fire Authority & Essex Police Authority. The CBC element of Band D is £175.23 so 1.95% is indeed £3.42.
Council Tax is made up of amounts due to Essex CC, Colchester BC, Essex Fire Authority & Essex Police Authority. The CBC element of Band D is £175.23 so 1.95% is indeed £3.42. hughie-s
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Reginald47 says...

And that's hardly a 'hike' by the way Gazette.
And that's hardly a 'hike' by the way Gazette. Reginald47
  • Score: 0

12:24am Thu 10 Jan 13

Boris says...

1.95% seems reasonable in the circumstances.
Well done the journalists for getting their arithmetic right.
A hike means any increase, including this modest one.
Remains to be seen how much the County will be demanding. Don't forget they have a lot of bills to pay. For example, they have written off all those dodgy expense claims by the "noble" lord, and only one of his guests has had the decency to pay back the cost of the lavish lunch to which he was treated. Those depredations alone probably amount to £1 or more from every household in the county.
Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost.
1.95% seems reasonable in the circumstances. Well done the journalists for getting their arithmetic right. A hike means any increase, including this modest one. Remains to be seen how much the County will be demanding. Don't forget they have a lot of bills to pay. For example, they have written off all those dodgy expense claims by the "noble" lord, and only one of his guests has had the decency to pay back the cost of the lavish lunch to which he was treated. Those depredations alone probably amount to £1 or more from every household in the county. Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost. Boris
  • Score: 0

1:15am Thu 10 Jan 13

Boris says...

Reginald47 wrote:
And that's hardly a 'hike' by the way Gazette.
"Hike" is one of those short words beloved by journalists but which the rest of us seldom use. Other such weird words include "fury" and "misery", but I'm sure you can think of others.
Gazette mini-glossary:
Hike = increase
Fury = mild anger
Misery = minor inconvenience
Snap up = sign a contract with (a footballer)
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: And that's hardly a 'hike' by the way Gazette.[/p][/quote]"Hike" is one of those short words beloved by journalists but which the rest of us seldom use. Other such weird words include "fury" and "misery", but I'm sure you can think of others. Gazette mini-glossary: Hike = increase Fury = mild anger Misery = minor inconvenience Snap up = sign a contract with (a footballer) Boris
  • Score: 0

6:32am Thu 10 Jan 13

jim_bo says...

Surely if they reduced the number of councillors to 40 that would save a packet?

Perhaps replace the chief exec or share him with another council that would save £60k.

What about collecting all the unpaid council tax, or evict the tenants that won't pay?
Surely if they reduced the number of councillors to 40 that would save a packet? Perhaps replace the chief exec or share him with another council that would save £60k. What about collecting all the unpaid council tax, or evict the tenants that won't pay? jim_bo
  • Score: 0

8:41am Thu 10 Jan 13

TheCaptain says...

Boris wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
And that's hardly a 'hike' by the way Gazette.
"Hike" is one of those short words beloved by journalists but which the rest of us seldom use. Other such weird words include "fury" and "misery", but I'm sure you can think of others.
Gazette mini-glossary:
Hike = increase
Fury = mild anger
Misery = minor inconvenience
Snap up = sign a contract with (a footballer)
I use the word hike but only when I'm on a long walk.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: And that's hardly a 'hike' by the way Gazette.[/p][/quote]"Hike" is one of those short words beloved by journalists but which the rest of us seldom use. Other such weird words include "fury" and "misery", but I'm sure you can think of others. Gazette mini-glossary: Hike = increase Fury = mild anger Misery = minor inconvenience Snap up = sign a contract with (a footballer)[/p][/quote]I use the word hike but only when I'm on a long walk. TheCaptain
  • Score: 0

8:41am Thu 10 Jan 13

TheCaptain says...

micksmercs wrote:
God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.
I just love it when someone is angry about something when they are 100% wrong. Would be nice to acknowledge the mistake.
[quote][p][bold]micksmercs[/bold] wrote: God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.[/p][/quote]I just love it when someone is angry about something when they are 100% wrong. Would be nice to acknowledge the mistake. TheCaptain
  • Score: 0

10:02am Thu 10 Jan 13

Boris says...

TheCaptain wrote:
micksmercs wrote:
God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.
I just love it when someone is angry about something when they are 100% wrong. Would be nice to acknowledge the mistake.
I felt like suggesting that but I didn't because I know micksmercs is an intelligent man (yes, despite his obvious error) and he wouldn't need reminding. Probably he hasn't had a chance to see this thread since his own unfortunate posting. We all make mistakes. No doubt he will revert with another comment when he gets the chance.
[quote][p][bold]TheCaptain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]micksmercs[/bold] wrote: God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.[/p][/quote]I just love it when someone is angry about something when they are 100% wrong. Would be nice to acknowledge the mistake.[/p][/quote]I felt like suggesting that but I didn't because I know micksmercs is an intelligent man (yes, despite his obvious error) and he wouldn't need reminding. Probably he hasn't had a chance to see this thread since his own unfortunate posting. We all make mistakes. No doubt he will revert with another comment when he gets the chance. Boris
  • Score: 0

10:04am Thu 10 Jan 13

micksmercs says...

TheCaptain wrote:
micksmercs wrote:
God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.
I just love it when someone is angry about something when they are 100% wrong. Would be nice to acknowledge the mistake.
Hands up.I stand corrected.But I am still angry as this money will only get wasted as always by our useless council.
[quote][p][bold]TheCaptain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]micksmercs[/bold] wrote: God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.[/p][/quote]I just love it when someone is angry about something when they are 100% wrong. Would be nice to acknowledge the mistake.[/p][/quote]Hands up.I stand corrected.But I am still angry as this money will only get wasted as always by our useless council. micksmercs
  • Score: 0

10:12am Thu 10 Jan 13

Boris says...

jim_bo wrote:
Surely if they reduced the number of councillors to 40 that would save a packet?

Perhaps replace the chief exec or share him with another council that would save £60k.

What about collecting all the unpaid council tax, or evict the tenants that won't pay?
1. Would you expect turkeys to vote for an early Xmas? See also below.
2. When TDC's chief exec retired, CBC did propose sharing with them, but they refused. I would say we could have a combined North East Essex council, with 40 councillors altogether, instead of the present 120. That way there would be proper jobs for most of them, instead of the present arrangement with a handful of portfolio holders and the rest being mere backbenchers with little to do.
The combined councils should be a unitary authority which would cut out Essex CC, and handle all the tasks that ECC does, thus giving the slimmed-down council something useful to get its teeth into.
3. I think the law prevents them from taking speedy action, but certainly it would be good if they could and did.
[quote][p][bold]jim_bo[/bold] wrote: Surely if they reduced the number of councillors to 40 that would save a packet? Perhaps replace the chief exec or share him with another council that would save £60k. What about collecting all the unpaid council tax, or evict the tenants that won't pay?[/p][/quote]1. Would you expect turkeys to vote for an early Xmas? See also below. 2. When TDC's chief exec retired, CBC did propose sharing with them, but they refused. I would say we could have a combined North East Essex council, with 40 councillors altogether, instead of the present 120. That way there would be proper jobs for most of them, instead of the present arrangement with a handful of portfolio holders and the rest being mere backbenchers with little to do. The combined councils should be a unitary authority which would cut out Essex CC, and handle all the tasks that ECC does, thus giving the slimmed-down council something useful to get its teeth into. 3. I think the law prevents them from taking speedy action, but certainly it would be good if they could and did. Boris
  • Score: 0

10:13am Thu 10 Jan 13

Boris says...

micksmercs wrote:
TheCaptain wrote:
micksmercs wrote:
God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.
I just love it when someone is angry about something when they are 100% wrong. Would be nice to acknowledge the mistake.
Hands up.I stand corrected.But I am still angry as this money will only get wasted as always by our useless council.
I knew it. Decent bloke, micksmercs, even though I usually disagree with him.
[quote][p][bold]micksmercs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheCaptain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]micksmercs[/bold] wrote: God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.[/p][/quote]I just love it when someone is angry about something when they are 100% wrong. Would be nice to acknowledge the mistake.[/p][/quote]Hands up.I stand corrected.But I am still angry as this money will only get wasted as always by our useless council.[/p][/quote]I knew it. Decent bloke, micksmercs, even though I usually disagree with him. Boris
  • Score: 0

10:27am Thu 10 Jan 13

Boris says...

TheCaptain wrote:
Boris wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
And that's hardly a 'hike' by the way Gazette.
"Hike" is one of those short words beloved by journalists but which the rest of us seldom use. Other such weird words include "fury" and "misery", but I'm sure you can think of others.
Gazette mini-glossary:
Hike = increase
Fury = mild anger
Misery = minor inconvenience
Snap up = sign a contract with (a footballer)
I use the word hike but only when I'm on a long walk.
Agreed, but in this context it is an Americanism, like so many other expressions in common use these days. The Gazette is owned by an American company, so it is to be expected.
[quote][p][bold]TheCaptain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: And that's hardly a 'hike' by the way Gazette.[/p][/quote]"Hike" is one of those short words beloved by journalists but which the rest of us seldom use. Other such weird words include "fury" and "misery", but I'm sure you can think of others. Gazette mini-glossary: Hike = increase Fury = mild anger Misery = minor inconvenience Snap up = sign a contract with (a footballer)[/p][/quote]I use the word hike but only when I'm on a long walk.[/p][/quote]Agreed, but in this context it is an Americanism, like so many other expressions in common use these days. The Gazette is owned by an American company, so it is to be expected. Boris
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Thu 10 Jan 13

TheCaptain says...

micksmercs wrote:
TheCaptain wrote:
micksmercs wrote:
God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.
I just love it when someone is angry about something when they are 100% wrong. Would be nice to acknowledge the mistake.
Hands up.I stand corrected.But I am still angry as this money will only get wasted as always by our useless council.
Okay sorry if I was a bit condescending.
[quote][p][bold]micksmercs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheCaptain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]micksmercs[/bold] wrote: God this paper is crap.1.95% = on £179.00 which I pay every month for 10 months works out at an increase of £34.90 a year.Get rid of the idiots gazette, and employ people with a little savvy,not kids wet behind the ears.[/p][/quote]I just love it when someone is angry about something when they are 100% wrong. Would be nice to acknowledge the mistake.[/p][/quote]Hands up.I stand corrected.But I am still angry as this money will only get wasted as always by our useless council.[/p][/quote]Okay sorry if I was a bit condescending. TheCaptain
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Thu 10 Jan 13

RB, Lexden says...

In one year,2010-2011,the three highest paid Colchester Borough Council employees - including £118,373 a year chief executive Adrian Pritchard - were paid a total of £344,633 in salaries,
fees,allowances and pension contributions.Or to put it another way:
£6627 a week.In good economic times,£6627 a week for a trio of pen pushers might seem a bit excessive.In the current economic climate,
it is grotesque and indefensible.
Where in the private sector in Colchester would this trio be able to earn such money and look forward to such generous pensions
which few of us in the real world can
afford?.
In one year,2010-2011,the three highest paid Colchester Borough Council employees - including £118,373 a year chief executive Adrian Pritchard - were paid a total of £344,633 in salaries, fees,allowances and pension contributions.Or to put it another way: £6627 a week.In good economic times,£6627 a week for a trio of pen pushers might seem a bit excessive.In the current economic climate, it is grotesque and indefensible. Where in the private sector in Colchester would this trio be able to earn such money and look forward to such generous pensions which few of us in the real world can afford?. RB, Lexden
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Reginald47 says...

Loads of places in the private sector I would think. Senior wages in the private sector are generally higher than those in public service. As for the salaries mentioned all the people concerned are, of course, on contracts as are people in the private sector also. And to get rid of people on contracts you have to pay them off which costs even more. Some people, of course, seem to forget these things as it's terribly convenient.
Loads of places in the private sector I would think. Senior wages in the private sector are generally higher than those in public service. As for the salaries mentioned all the people concerned are, of course, on contracts as are people in the private sector also. And to get rid of people on contracts you have to pay them off which costs even more. Some people, of course, seem to forget these things as it's terribly convenient. Reginald47
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Thu 10 Jan 13

RB, Lexden says...

Reginald47:
Meadow Lady was fifty per cent right
when he or she described you here the other
day as "a smart a**e."
It is the 'smart' bit I disagree with.
Make a new year's resolution : try reading posts before commenting on them.What I actually said was :
"Where in the private sector in Colchester would this trio be able to earn such money AND look forward to such generous pensions which few of us in the real world can afford?."
You have misrepresented what I said..
How "terribly convenient" for you,Reginald47,
to miss or 'overlook' the crucial bit
about pensions.Give us the names of
Colchester companies,which provide
pensions as generous as those Colchester council
fat cats can expect to receive at our expense?.
Reginald47,if you are a councillor or
a council official - and even if you
are neither - please push off and
peddle your puerile PR pap on the
council website ..
Reginald47: Meadow Lady was fifty per cent right when he or she described you here the other day as "a smart a**e." It is the 'smart' bit I disagree with. Make a new year's resolution : try reading posts before commenting on them.What I actually said was : "Where in the private sector in Colchester would this trio be able to earn such money AND look forward to such generous pensions which few of us in the real world can afford?." You have misrepresented what I said.. How "terribly convenient" for you,Reginald47, to miss or 'overlook' the crucial bit about pensions.Give us the names of Colchester companies,which provide pensions as generous as those Colchester council fat cats can expect to receive at our expense?. Reginald47,if you are a councillor or a council official - and even if you are neither - please push off and peddle your puerile PR pap on the council website .. RB, Lexden
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Thu 10 Jan 13

wivenhoe really cross says...

Im sure that with a county election on the horizon the county will go for a tax freeze this year, or maybe I'm just a Cynic.

they will hike them next year instead. Was it brewsters millions where Richard prior Declares "I want to buy your Vote" how thick do they think we are. Rant Over
Im sure that with a county election on the horizon the county will go for a tax freeze this year, or maybe I'm just a Cynic. they will hike them next year instead. Was it brewsters millions where Richard prior Declares "I want to buy your Vote" how thick do they think we are. Rant Over wivenhoe really cross
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Thu 10 Jan 13

roger bacon says...

Why are CBC raising their part of the council tax when TDC are not. Are they more efficient in Tendring

There is a review just out that says that councillors should have quite a large increase in pay. It is thought that you would get a better class of person if this is bought in.
Why are CBC raising their part of the council tax when TDC are not. Are they more efficient in Tendring There is a review just out that says that councillors should have quite a large increase in pay. It is thought that you would get a better class of person if this is bought in. roger bacon
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Thu 10 Jan 13

seikothrill says...

The increase is only that by Colchester Borough Council, I still have to wait for the extra add-ons from my Parish Council, Myland.

The percentage increase Myland has imposed on us over the last 10 years is way above inflation.
The increase is only that by Colchester Borough Council, I still have to wait for the extra add-ons from my Parish Council, Myland. The percentage increase Myland has imposed on us over the last 10 years is way above inflation. seikothrill
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Jess Jephcott says...

Oh the joys of living in a village. We pay extra council tax yet don't get the services. Not that I much care for streetlights or public transport or having to pay to park or traffic jams or road gritting, to name but a few 'benefits' that the townies get. But a 1.95% rise plus the inevitable rise from our parish council seems reasonable when you think it has been pegged for a few years. I would rather have paid extra progressively and got better services than we have been getting. We cannot escape inflation, so ignoring it can only serve to reduce the quality of the service.
Oh the joys of living in a village. We pay extra council tax yet don't get the services. Not that I much care for streetlights or public transport or having to pay to park or traffic jams or road gritting, to name but a few 'benefits' that the townies get. But a 1.95% rise plus the inevitable rise from our parish council seems reasonable when you think it has been pegged for a few years. I would rather have paid extra progressively and got better services than we have been getting. We cannot escape inflation, so ignoring it can only serve to reduce the quality of the service. Jess Jephcott
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Reginald47 says...

RB = Sad and nasty person.
RB = Sad and nasty person. Reginald47
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Thu 10 Jan 13

jim_bo says...

In times past you were a public servant, working for the good of the public. You got paid less than those in the private sector but were rewarded with attractive pensions and early retirement as a thankyou for your service.

But then came the greedy council officer, who wants to be paid as much as his private counterparts but keep all his perks.

Can't have it both ways, vote for Christmas Adrian do us all a favour!
In times past you were a public servant, working for the good of the public. You got paid less than those in the private sector but were rewarded with attractive pensions and early retirement as a thankyou for your service. But then came the greedy council officer, who wants to be paid as much as his private counterparts but keep all his perks. Can't have it both ways, vote for Christmas Adrian do us all a favour! jim_bo
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Boris says...

jim_bo wrote:
In times past you were a public servant, working for the good of the public. You got paid less than those in the private sector but were rewarded with attractive pensions and early retirement as a thankyou for your service.

But then came the greedy council officer, who wants to be paid as much as his private counterparts but keep all his perks.

Can't have it both ways, vote for Christmas Adrian do us all a favour!
I read recently that many of the highest-paid council officers in the country are not on the payroll, but are small businesses that sell the services of the named person. If this is so, then on the plus side, the council can simply terminate their contracts if it wishes, without having to pay huge sums in redundancy money.
Does anyone know whether this applies to Adrian Pritchard, Ian Vipond or any other top council officers locally?
[quote][p][bold]jim_bo[/bold] wrote: In times past you were a public servant, working for the good of the public. You got paid less than those in the private sector but were rewarded with attractive pensions and early retirement as a thankyou for your service. But then came the greedy council officer, who wants to be paid as much as his private counterparts but keep all his perks. Can't have it both ways, vote for Christmas Adrian do us all a favour![/p][/quote]I read recently that many of the highest-paid council officers in the country are not on the payroll, but are small businesses that sell the services of the named person. If this is so, then on the plus side, the council can simply terminate their contracts if it wishes, without having to pay huge sums in redundancy money. Does anyone know whether this applies to Adrian Pritchard, Ian Vipond or any other top council officers locally? Boris
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Boris says...

roger bacon wrote:
Why are CBC raising their part of the council tax when TDC are not. Are they more efficient in Tendring

There is a review just out that says that councillors should have quite a large increase in pay. It is thought that you would get a better class of person if this is bought in.
This report sounds as if it is a lot of special pleading, to which we should pay no attention at all. Councillors who accumulate roles and who also have posts on quangos can notch up quite impressive incomes. A couple of CBC councillors collect an estimated £70,000 per year in this way, while another couple of councillors in TDC were collecting £90,000 a year when last I heard. We akso know of a county councillor who in the end was able to collect a lot more money from his council work than from his previous occupation as a pig farmer.
Rather than councillors' allowances being increased, they should be abolished altogether. They should only collect expenses, with every claim being independently checked.
[quote][p][bold]roger bacon[/bold] wrote: Why are CBC raising their part of the council tax when TDC are not. Are they more efficient in Tendring There is a review just out that says that councillors should have quite a large increase in pay. It is thought that you would get a better class of person if this is bought in.[/p][/quote]This report sounds as if it is a lot of special pleading, to which we should pay no attention at all. Councillors who accumulate roles and who also have posts on quangos can notch up quite impressive incomes. A couple of CBC councillors collect an estimated £70,000 per year in this way, while another couple of councillors in TDC were collecting £90,000 a year when last I heard. We akso know of a county councillor who in the end was able to collect a lot more money from his council work than from his previous occupation as a pig farmer. Rather than councillors' allowances being increased, they should be abolished altogether. They should only collect expenses, with every claim being independently checked. Boris
  • Score: 0

11:18pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Hamiltonandy says...

Ideally councillors would only get genuine expenses so no one relied on the allowances as income. Reducing the number of councillors would cut costs.
.
At committee meetings I have seen councillors sit through the whole meeting without making any useful points. As eight councillors make most of the decisions, you wonder if the other 52 councillors make much difference.
.
We have two councillors in Lexden but I wonder if we could manage with one. I doubt it would make any difference!
.
Perhaps a referendum at election time might encourage much needed changes. Getting rid of party labels in local elections might encourage councillors to put residents ahead of petty politics.
Ideally councillors would only get genuine expenses so no one relied on the allowances as income. Reducing the number of councillors would cut costs. . At committee meetings I have seen councillors sit through the whole meeting without making any useful points. As eight councillors make most of the decisions, you wonder if the other 52 councillors make much difference. . We have two councillors in Lexden but I wonder if we could manage with one. I doubt it would make any difference! . Perhaps a referendum at election time might encourage much needed changes. Getting rid of party labels in local elections might encourage councillors to put residents ahead of petty politics. Hamiltonandy
  • Score: 0

7:21am Fri 11 Jan 13

jim_bo says...

'Perhaps a referendum at election time might encourage much needed changes. Getting rid of party labels in local elections might encourage councillors to put residents ahead of petty politics.'

That's a great idea Andy, there should be no such thing as partisan politics at a local level. Look at the good that the Highwoods Independants do!

Perhaps you could start the Colchester Independant Party?
'Perhaps a referendum at election time might encourage much needed changes. Getting rid of party labels in local elections might encourage councillors to put residents ahead of petty politics.' That's a great idea Andy, there should be no such thing as partisan politics at a local level. Look at the good that the Highwoods Independants do! Perhaps you could start the Colchester Independant Party? jim_bo
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Fri 11 Jan 13

jut1972 says...

Boris said..
Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost

Why do you keep saying this, its patently untrue. The 3.5m figure is a nonsense. You show me where in the council figures it says that and I'll admit I'm wrong.

Seikothrill said...
The percentage increase Myland has imposed on us over the last 10 years is way above inflation.

Thats cos CBC cut their funding. They took it and then when Myland had to raise their % everyone thinks its the parish council thats at fault, its not its CBC.

I think a statement from CBC on why they feel 1.95% is justified would be welcomed by everyone, based on past performance a cut would be more welcome. If I am getting crap service I dont like having to pay for it.
Boris said.. Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost Why do you keep saying this, its patently untrue. The 3.5m figure is a nonsense. You show me where in the council figures it says that and I'll admit I'm wrong. Seikothrill said... The percentage increase Myland has imposed on us over the last 10 years is way above inflation. Thats cos CBC cut their funding. They took it and then when Myland had to raise their % everyone thinks its the parish council thats at fault, its not its CBC. I think a statement from CBC on why they feel 1.95% is justified would be welcomed by everyone, based on past performance a cut would be more welcome. If I am getting crap service I dont like having to pay for it. jut1972
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Fri 11 Jan 13

TheCaptain says...

jut1972 wrote:
Boris said..
Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost

Why do you keep saying this, its patently untrue. The 3.5m figure is a nonsense. You show me where in the council figures it says that and I'll admit I'm wrong.

Seikothrill said...
The percentage increase Myland has imposed on us over the last 10 years is way above inflation.

Thats cos CBC cut their funding. They took it and then when Myland had to raise their % everyone thinks its the parish council thats at fault, its not its CBC.

I think a statement from CBC on why they feel 1.95% is justified would be welcomed by everyone, based on past performance a cut would be more welcome. If I am getting crap service I dont like having to pay for it.
Also a band D property in Myland is £15.89pa. Percentages on these type of amounts are pointless as £1.00 a year rise is 6.3%
[quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: Boris said.. Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost Why do you keep saying this, its patently untrue. The 3.5m figure is a nonsense. You show me where in the council figures it says that and I'll admit I'm wrong. Seikothrill said... The percentage increase Myland has imposed on us over the last 10 years is way above inflation. Thats cos CBC cut their funding. They took it and then when Myland had to raise their % everyone thinks its the parish council thats at fault, its not its CBC. I think a statement from CBC on why they feel 1.95% is justified would be welcomed by everyone, based on past performance a cut would be more welcome. If I am getting crap service I dont like having to pay for it.[/p][/quote]Also a band D property in Myland is £15.89pa. Percentages on these type of amounts are pointless as £1.00 a year rise is 6.3% TheCaptain
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Fri 11 Jan 13

jim_bo says...

Who looked after these parishes before the councils were made up?

Oh that's right CBC and it was part of your normal council tax.
Who looked after these parishes before the councils were made up? Oh that's right CBC and it was part of your normal council tax. jim_bo
  • Score: 0

11:36pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Boris says...

jut1972 wrote:
Boris said..
Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost

Why do you keep saying this, its patently untrue. The 3.5m figure is a nonsense. You show me where in the council figures it says that and I'll admit I'm wrong.

Seikothrill said...
The percentage increase Myland has imposed on us over the last 10 years is way above inflation.

Thats cos CBC cut their funding. They took it and then when Myland had to raise their % everyone thinks its the parish council thats at fault, its not its CBC.

I think a statement from CBC on why they feel 1.95% is justified would be welcomed by everyone, based on past performance a cut would be more welcome. If I am getting crap service I dont like having to pay for it.
The figure of £3.5 million is not nonsense at all, it is an informed estimate, and that is all we have to go on, because ECC (who spent the bulk of the money) and CBC (who spent the rest of it) have refused to divulge the cost despite Freedom of Information Act requests. You will never find it in the accounts, for both councils are well versed in the ancient art of producing accounts which balance perfectly, and which conceal what needs to be concealed.
Therefore you are out of order in saying £3.5 m is patently untrue. The fact is that you don't know, and I don't know, but we do know that the original figure of £2 million is a significant underestimate.
You are correct is saying we get a crap service from CBC (except in refuse disposal which works just fine for most of us). But I don't think your feelings about having to pay your council tax are very relevant. If you don't like it, try moving to another local authority area which you find more congenial, or try standing for the council so that if successful you can try and alter council policy. Otherwise just pay up (which you will have to do anyway) and don't waste time moaning about it.
[quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: Boris said.. Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost Why do you keep saying this, its patently untrue. The 3.5m figure is a nonsense. You show me where in the council figures it says that and I'll admit I'm wrong. Seikothrill said... The percentage increase Myland has imposed on us over the last 10 years is way above inflation. Thats cos CBC cut their funding. They took it and then when Myland had to raise their % everyone thinks its the parish council thats at fault, its not its CBC. I think a statement from CBC on why they feel 1.95% is justified would be welcomed by everyone, based on past performance a cut would be more welcome. If I am getting crap service I dont like having to pay for it.[/p][/quote]The figure of £3.5 million is not nonsense at all, it is an informed estimate, and that is all we have to go on, because ECC (who spent the bulk of the money) and CBC (who spent the rest of it) have refused to divulge the cost despite Freedom of Information Act requests. You will never find it in the accounts, for both councils are well versed in the ancient art of producing accounts which balance perfectly, and which conceal what needs to be concealed. Therefore you are out of order in saying £3.5 m is patently untrue. The fact is that you don't know, and I don't know, but we do know that the original figure of £2 million is a significant underestimate. You are correct is saying we get a crap service from CBC (except in refuse disposal which works just fine for most of us). But I don't think your feelings about having to pay your council tax are very relevant. If you don't like it, try moving to another local authority area which you find more congenial, or try standing for the council so that if successful you can try and alter council policy. Otherwise just pay up (which you will have to do anyway) and don't waste time moaning about it. Boris
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Hamiltonandy says...

It is unfair to condemn Boris over his £3.5million estimate for the so called "bus station". Colchester Council is notorious both for its illegal secrecy and a consistent huge underestimates of its project costs.
.
I remember councillors gloating that the VAF would only cost local taxpayers £1million and the rest from grants. The true costs have never been published and neither have the reports. Nor has the cost of staff time.
.
Is is likely the "bus station" will be built close to the original estimate or in reality more like double. I watched it being bodged up by uncaring contractors and thought Colchester Council deserved all the humiliation yet to come over the lack of a real bus station.
It is unfair to condemn Boris over his £3.5million estimate for the so called "bus station". Colchester Council is notorious both for its illegal secrecy and a consistent huge underestimates of its project costs. . I remember councillors gloating that the VAF would only cost local taxpayers £1million and the rest from grants. The true costs have never been published and neither have the reports. Nor has the cost of staff time. . Is is likely the "bus station" will be built close to the original estimate or in reality more like double. I watched it being bodged up by uncaring contractors and thought Colchester Council deserved all the humiliation yet to come over the lack of a real bus station. Hamiltonandy
  • Score: 0

10:39am Sun 13 Jan 13

theequaliser1 says...

Boris wrote:
1.95% seems reasonable in the circumstances.
Well done the journalists for getting their arithmetic right.
A hike means any increase, including this modest one.
Remains to be seen how much the County will be demanding. Don't forget they have a lot of bills to pay. For example, they have written off all those dodgy expense claims by the "noble" lord, and only one of his guests has had the decency to pay back the cost of the lavish lunch to which he was treated. Those depredations alone probably amount to £1 or more from every household in the county.
Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost.
colchester sports centre £21 million
VAF/Firstsite or No For sight £44 Million
from other sources but one wonders how much colchester had to stump up at our end;
£750,000 went down the plug hole at Street Services some years ago.
The list is endless.
The current Bus Station fiasco is a machination in the making!
The want an increase in Ali Ba Ba. what a joke.
Sack them all including the Chief Office and lets bring and agency in to run it with a committee. of like minded local colcestrians. ie you have to have a stanwell house birth certificate to sit on it.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: 1.95% seems reasonable in the circumstances. Well done the journalists for getting their arithmetic right. A hike means any increase, including this modest one. Remains to be seen how much the County will be demanding. Don't forget they have a lot of bills to pay. For example, they have written off all those dodgy expense claims by the "noble" lord, and only one of his guests has had the decency to pay back the cost of the lavish lunch to which he was treated. Those depredations alone probably amount to £1 or more from every household in the county. Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost.[/p][/quote]colchester sports centre £21 million VAF/Firstsite or No For sight £44 Million from other sources but one wonders how much colchester had to stump up at our end; £750,000 went down the plug hole at Street Services some years ago. The list is endless. The current Bus Station fiasco is a machination in the making! The want an increase in Ali Ba Ba. what a joke. Sack them all including the Chief Office and lets bring and agency in to run it with a committee. of like minded local colcestrians. ie you have to have a stanwell house birth certificate to sit on it. theequaliser1
  • Score: 0

10:54am Sun 13 Jan 13

theequaliser1 says...

you only need 1 councilor per ward and yes some of them are using the job as income and where claiming credits on the work involved.
some wards have 3 of these herberts running the show.
as for the grey suits just remember this in the last 5 years of this recession you have had your pay cheques at the end of every month.
the majority of us who are not in your club dont have the comfort of money or food on the table week in week out.
your two thirds 2/3rds gold plated pensions scheme paid on the backs of us is another afront that we are all being sickened off on a daily basis.
when you retire you will lord over the masses with your Ford Mondeo every year and 4 holidays in Tarasamalata while we end up at center parcs.
and when i say grey suits i mean all of you in the public sector.
you might pay your council tax and other taxes by means of your wages via your labours to the state or system you are employed by.
people like me are the wealth creators in society, i make the money from scratch there is no platinum plated gravy local authority or civil service job paying my way.
and i get no sickness allowances or holiday pay either if i am ill or want a break.
i nether bunk off work for 9 months to have a baby or go sick claiming depression and stress if i balls up either and have my clients on my back in your case your bosses playing around with their desk toys.
this recession is going to last another 5 years to 2018 mark this comment.
you dont push prices up you make cuts and that is cuts in the money for old rope sitting about jobs and not the services.
i am sure you will enjoy reading this post while some of you are working from home. i understand that you only go in the office about twice a week.
nice world for some is it not????
you only need 1 councilor per ward and yes some of them are using the job as income and where claiming credits on the work involved. some wards have 3 of these herberts running the show. as for the grey suits just remember this in the last 5 years of this recession you have had your pay cheques at the end of every month. the majority of us who are not in your club dont have the comfort of money or food on the table week in week out. your two thirds 2/3rds gold plated pensions scheme paid on the backs of us is another afront that we are all being sickened off on a daily basis. when you retire you will lord over the masses with your Ford Mondeo every year and 4 holidays in Tarasamalata while we end up at center parcs. and when i say grey suits i mean all of you in the public sector. you might pay your council tax and other taxes by means of your wages via your labours to the state or system you are employed by. people like me are the wealth creators in society, i make the money from scratch there is no platinum plated gravy local authority or civil service job paying my way. and i get no sickness allowances or holiday pay either if i am ill or want a break. i nether bunk off work for 9 months to have a baby or go sick claiming depression and stress if i balls up either and have my clients on my back in your case your bosses playing around with their desk toys. this recession is going to last another 5 years to 2018 mark this comment. you dont push prices up you make cuts and that is cuts in the money for old rope sitting about jobs and not the services. i am sure you will enjoy reading this post while some of you are working from home. i understand that you only go in the office about twice a week. nice world for some is it not???? theequaliser1
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Sun 13 Jan 13

roger bacon says...

theequaliser1 wrote:
you only need 1 councilor per ward and yes some of them are using the job as income and where claiming credits on the work involved.
some wards have 3 of these herberts running the show.
as for the grey suits just remember this in the last 5 years of this recession you have had your pay cheques at the end of every month.
the majority of us who are not in your club dont have the comfort of money or food on the table week in week out.
your two thirds 2/3rds gold plated pensions scheme paid on the backs of us is another afront that we are all being sickened off on a daily basis.
when you retire you will lord over the masses with your Ford Mondeo every year and 4 holidays in Tarasamalata while we end up at center parcs.
and when i say grey suits i mean all of you in the public sector.
you might pay your council tax and other taxes by means of your wages via your labours to the state or system you are employed by.
people like me are the wealth creators in society, i make the money from scratch there is no platinum plated gravy local authority or civil service job paying my way.
and i get no sickness allowances or holiday pay either if i am ill or want a break.
i nether bunk off work for 9 months to have a baby or go sick claiming depression and stress if i balls up either and have my clients on my back in your case your bosses playing around with their desk toys.
this recession is going to last another 5 years to 2018 mark this comment.
you dont push prices up you make cuts and that is cuts in the money for old rope sitting about jobs and not the services.
i am sure you will enjoy reading this post while some of you are working from home. i understand that you only go in the office about twice a week.
nice world for some is it not????
What an excellent and true post. . All councils have got more bloated over the last 12 years and a good cull would not be out of order.
[quote][p][bold]theequaliser1[/bold] wrote: you only need 1 councilor per ward and yes some of them are using the job as income and where claiming credits on the work involved. some wards have 3 of these herberts running the show. as for the grey suits just remember this in the last 5 years of this recession you have had your pay cheques at the end of every month. the majority of us who are not in your club dont have the comfort of money or food on the table week in week out. your two thirds 2/3rds gold plated pensions scheme paid on the backs of us is another afront that we are all being sickened off on a daily basis. when you retire you will lord over the masses with your Ford Mondeo every year and 4 holidays in Tarasamalata while we end up at center parcs. and when i say grey suits i mean all of you in the public sector. you might pay your council tax and other taxes by means of your wages via your labours to the state or system you are employed by. people like me are the wealth creators in society, i make the money from scratch there is no platinum plated gravy local authority or civil service job paying my way. and i get no sickness allowances or holiday pay either if i am ill or want a break. i nether bunk off work for 9 months to have a baby or go sick claiming depression and stress if i balls up either and have my clients on my back in your case your bosses playing around with their desk toys. this recession is going to last another 5 years to 2018 mark this comment. you dont push prices up you make cuts and that is cuts in the money for old rope sitting about jobs and not the services. i am sure you will enjoy reading this post while some of you are working from home. i understand that you only go in the office about twice a week. nice world for some is it not????[/p][/quote]What an excellent and true post. . All councils have got more bloated over the last 12 years and a good cull would not be out of order. roger bacon
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Sun 13 Jan 13

jut1972 says...

Boris wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
Boris said..
Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost

Why do you keep saying this, its patently untrue. The 3.5m figure is a nonsense. You show me where in the council figures it says that and I'll admit I'm wrong.

Seikothrill said...
The percentage increase Myland has imposed on us over the last 10 years is way above inflation.

Thats cos CBC cut their funding. They took it and then when Myland had to raise their % everyone thinks its the parish council thats at fault, its not its CBC.

I think a statement from CBC on why they feel 1.95% is justified would be welcomed by everyone, based on past performance a cut would be more welcome. If I am getting crap service I dont like having to pay for it.
The figure of £3.5 million is not nonsense at all, it is an informed estimate, and that is all we have to go on, because ECC (who spent the bulk of the money) and CBC (who spent the rest of it) have refused to divulge the cost despite Freedom of Information Act requests. You will never find it in the accounts, for both councils are well versed in the ancient art of producing accounts which balance perfectly, and which conceal what needs to be concealed.
Therefore you are out of order in saying £3.5 m is patently untrue. The fact is that you don't know, and I don't know, but we do know that the original figure of £2 million is a significant underestimate.
You are correct is saying we get a crap service from CBC (except in refuse disposal which works just fine for most of us). But I don't think your feelings about having to pay your council tax are very relevant. If you don't like it, try moving to another local authority area which you find more congenial, or try standing for the council so that if successful you can try and alter council policy. Otherwise just pay up (which you will have to do anyway) and don't waste time moaning about it.
2 things.
You admit the 3.5m is an estimate which if I recall was provided by Feisty with no back up so excuse me if I don't agree with your opinion, for that's what it is nothing more. Especially the NONSENSE it will be replaced.

Second this forum is a way for us all to express our views and if I want to waste my time griping about CBCs lack of publicity over their plans I will. Thank you.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: Boris said.. Also of course the County has recently squandered £3½ million on a so-called bus station for Colchester, which will soon have to be replaced at additional cost Why do you keep saying this, its patently untrue. The 3.5m figure is a nonsense. You show me where in the council figures it says that and I'll admit I'm wrong. Seikothrill said... The percentage increase Myland has imposed on us over the last 10 years is way above inflation. Thats cos CBC cut their funding. They took it and then when Myland had to raise their % everyone thinks its the parish council thats at fault, its not its CBC. I think a statement from CBC on why they feel 1.95% is justified would be welcomed by everyone, based on past performance a cut would be more welcome. If I am getting crap service I dont like having to pay for it.[/p][/quote]The figure of £3.5 million is not nonsense at all, it is an informed estimate, and that is all we have to go on, because ECC (who spent the bulk of the money) and CBC (who spent the rest of it) have refused to divulge the cost despite Freedom of Information Act requests. You will never find it in the accounts, for both councils are well versed in the ancient art of producing accounts which balance perfectly, and which conceal what needs to be concealed. Therefore you are out of order in saying £3.5 m is patently untrue. The fact is that you don't know, and I don't know, but we do know that the original figure of £2 million is a significant underestimate. You are correct is saying we get a crap service from CBC (except in refuse disposal which works just fine for most of us). But I don't think your feelings about having to pay your council tax are very relevant. If you don't like it, try moving to another local authority area which you find more congenial, or try standing for the council so that if successful you can try and alter council policy. Otherwise just pay up (which you will have to do anyway) and don't waste time moaning about it.[/p][/quote]2 things. You admit the 3.5m is an estimate which if I recall was provided by Feisty with no back up so excuse me if I don't agree with your opinion, for that's what it is nothing more. Especially the NONSENSE it will be replaced. Second this forum is a way for us all to express our views and if I want to waste my time griping about CBCs lack of publicity over their plans I will. Thank you. jut1972
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Sun 13 Jan 13

jut1972 says...

theequaliser1 wrote:
you only need 1 councilor per ward and yes some of them are using the job as income and where claiming credits on the work involved.
some wards have 3 of these herberts running the show.
as for the grey suits just remember this in the last 5 years of this recession you have had your pay cheques at the end of every month.
the majority of us who are not in your club dont have the comfort of money or food on the table week in week out.
your two thirds 2/3rds gold plated pensions scheme paid on the backs of us is another afront that we are all being sickened off on a daily basis.
when you retire you will lord over the masses with your Ford Mondeo every year and 4 holidays in Tarasamalata while we end up at center parcs.
and when i say grey suits i mean all of you in the public sector.
you might pay your council tax and other taxes by means of your wages via your labours to the state or system you are employed by.
people like me are the wealth creators in society, i make the money from scratch there is no platinum plated gravy local authority or civil service job paying my way.
and i get no sickness allowances or holiday pay either if i am ill or want a break.
i nether bunk off work for 9 months to have a baby or go sick claiming depression and stress if i balls up either and have my clients on my back in your case your bosses playing around with their desk toys.
this recession is going to last another 5 years to 2018 mark this comment.
you dont push prices up you make cuts and that is cuts in the money for old rope sitting about jobs and not the services.
i am sure you will enjoy reading this post while some of you are working from home. i understand that you only go in the office about twice a week.
nice world for some is it not????
Bunking off work for 9 months to have a baby. Words fail me.
[quote][p][bold]theequaliser1[/bold] wrote: you only need 1 councilor per ward and yes some of them are using the job as income and where claiming credits on the work involved. some wards have 3 of these herberts running the show. as for the grey suits just remember this in the last 5 years of this recession you have had your pay cheques at the end of every month. the majority of us who are not in your club dont have the comfort of money or food on the table week in week out. your two thirds 2/3rds gold plated pensions scheme paid on the backs of us is another afront that we are all being sickened off on a daily basis. when you retire you will lord over the masses with your Ford Mondeo every year and 4 holidays in Tarasamalata while we end up at center parcs. and when i say grey suits i mean all of you in the public sector. you might pay your council tax and other taxes by means of your wages via your labours to the state or system you are employed by. people like me are the wealth creators in society, i make the money from scratch there is no platinum plated gravy local authority or civil service job paying my way. and i get no sickness allowances or holiday pay either if i am ill or want a break. i nether bunk off work for 9 months to have a baby or go sick claiming depression and stress if i balls up either and have my clients on my back in your case your bosses playing around with their desk toys. this recession is going to last another 5 years to 2018 mark this comment. you dont push prices up you make cuts and that is cuts in the money for old rope sitting about jobs and not the services. i am sure you will enjoy reading this post while some of you are working from home. i understand that you only go in the office about twice a week. nice world for some is it not????[/p][/quote]Bunking off work for 9 months to have a baby. Words fail me. jut1972
  • Score: 0

1:15am Tue 15 Jan 13

theequaliser1 says...

jut1972 says...
3:29pm Sun 13 Jan 13
""Bunking off work for 9 months to have a baby. Words fail me."""
Allow me the opportunity to put some sanguinary and eloquent additions to that remark.
no woman with any modicum of sense aspiration or inner and outer beauty, would be in a her right mind to expose herself to 9 months of sheer hell, after more often than not, 3 minutes of a knee tremble with the boss in the castle.
lovey dovey and airy fairy goes out of the window, plus all those holidays and romantic encounters ans Secret Escape weekends when the brats come along:
the only ones who do it in abundance is the working and lower middle classe to middle class...the upper middle class dont bother they are rich enough to get someone to do all the dirty work for them;
the wannabees all mortals below upper middle class have kids by the bucket load through a number of reasons...insecurity
/procreation of want by nature/and financial gain.
lets face it in the last 15 years you have 4 kids youve paid nothing to the state unless youre on a dual income of 100 grand....
we are not stupid and we know why it is done...so please dont take an old man like me for a fool...i might be a thicko in your eyes but stupid :-)
child allowance/child tax credits/working tax credits/child baby allowance/time off work by the truck load/ all that cooing around and attention/grandparen
ts dipping in their pockets and getting knackered doing all you nouveax riche wannabe "Cold Feet" brigades dirty work....
so please do not kid us when I have the acumen and decency to quote a remark like that...
i never got my 70 year old father in law to look after our children, his grandchildren and used them as slave labour then bagged all the child care allowance in the process...
yes 9 months is a complete bunk off after laying back and thinking of good old england..
then sit back and pocket the dough..thats my case in point...
however it comes back to haunt us all with teenage angst and spotty faced pubescent retribution.
im lucky i saved the cash up and gave it back to them after 17 years i put mine through Uni paid the lot, they still hate me, so now i give them the winston churchills. VVVV
jut1972 says... 3:29pm Sun 13 Jan 13 ""Bunking off work for 9 months to have a baby. Words fail me.""" Allow me the opportunity to put some sanguinary and eloquent additions to that remark. no woman with any modicum of sense aspiration or inner and outer beauty, would be in a her right mind to expose herself to 9 months of sheer hell, after more often than not, 3 minutes of a knee tremble with the boss in the castle. lovey dovey and airy fairy goes out of the window, plus all those holidays and romantic encounters ans Secret Escape weekends when the brats come along: the only ones who do it in abundance is the working and lower middle classe to middle class...the upper middle class dont bother they are rich enough to get someone to do all the dirty work for them; the wannabees all mortals below upper middle class have kids by the bucket load through a number of reasons...insecurity /procreation of want by nature/and financial gain. lets face it in the last 15 years you have 4 kids youve paid nothing to the state unless youre on a dual income of 100 grand.... we are not stupid and we know why it is done...so please dont take an old man like me for a fool...i might be a thicko in your eyes but stupid :-) child allowance/child tax credits/working tax credits/child baby allowance/time off work by the truck load/ all that cooing around and attention/grandparen ts dipping in their pockets and getting knackered doing all you nouveax riche wannabe "Cold Feet" brigades dirty work.... so please do not kid us when I have the acumen and decency to quote a remark like that... i never got my 70 year old father in law to look after our children, his grandchildren and used them as slave labour then bagged all the child care allowance in the process... yes 9 months is a complete bunk off after laying back and thinking of good old england.. then sit back and pocket the dough..thats my case in point... however it comes back to haunt us all with teenage angst and spotty faced pubescent retribution. im lucky i saved the cash up and gave it back to them after 17 years i put mine through Uni paid the lot, they still hate me, so now i give them the winston churchills. VVVV theequaliser1
  • Score: 0

9:18am Tue 15 Jan 13

romantic says...

equaliser, you really need to get out more and stop believing everything you read in the tabloids. In what world is every child the outcome of a 3-minute "knee-trembler" with the boss? There may be a few single parents out there who got pregnant just to get a flat - but not as many as the Daily Hate-Mail would have you believe.

In what world is giving the grandparents time with their grandchildren seen as slave labour? Most grandparents out there are upset that they do not see enough of the grandkids.

Maybe you should have let your kids pay their own way through Uni. I did it, and it meant that I valued the time there, rather than just pocketing daddy´s money as a birthright. It is sad that your kids "hate"you, it really is, and I wouldn´t wish that on anybody, but your post seems so full of venom against children that it feels there is a bigger story here.
equaliser, you really need to get out more and stop believing everything you read in the tabloids. In what world is every child the outcome of a 3-minute "knee-trembler" with the boss? There may be a few single parents out there who got pregnant just to get a flat - but not as many as the Daily Hate-Mail would have you believe. In what world is giving the grandparents time with their grandchildren seen as slave labour? Most grandparents out there are upset that they do not see enough of the grandkids. Maybe you should have let your kids pay their own way through Uni. I did it, and it meant that I valued the time there, rather than just pocketing daddy´s money as a birthright. It is sad that your kids "hate"you, it really is, and I wouldn´t wish that on anybody, but your post seems so full of venom against children that it feels there is a bigger story here. romantic
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Tue 15 Jan 13

co2 says...

Council tax to rise when services are being cut back is wrong?
I think its time for some new county councillors to be elected in place of those we currently have,streets are being neglected,dangerous footpaths causing tennants to trip,and then lib dem county councillor margaret fisher telling residents to watch where they are walking(witnessed by a rival labour councillor) time to vote in some county councillors who will do the job for which they were elected,represent their constituents,and sort out the problems in the area that they were elected to represent.
Council tax to rise when services are being cut back is wrong? I think its time for some new county councillors to be elected in place of those we currently have,streets are being neglected,dangerous footpaths causing tennants to trip,and then lib dem county councillor margaret fisher telling residents to watch where they are walking(witnessed by a rival labour councillor) time to vote in some county councillors who will do the job for which they were elected,represent their constituents,and sort out the problems in the area that they were elected to represent. co2
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Tue 15 Jan 13

co2 says...

jut1972 wrote:
theequaliser1 wrote: you only need 1 councilor per ward and yes some of them are using the job as income and where claiming credits on the work involved. some wards have 3 of these herberts running the show. as for the grey suits just remember this in the last 5 years of this recession you have had your pay cheques at the end of every month. the majority of us who are not in your club dont have the comfort of money or food on the table week in week out. your two thirds 2/3rds gold plated pensions scheme paid on the backs of us is another afront that we are all being sickened off on a daily basis. when you retire you will lord over the masses with your Ford Mondeo every year and 4 holidays in Tarasamalata while we end up at center parcs. and when i say grey suits i mean all of you in the public sector. you might pay your council tax and other taxes by means of your wages via your labours to the state or system you are employed by. people like me are the wealth creators in society, i make the money from scratch there is no platinum plated gravy local authority or civil service job paying my way. and i get no sickness allowances or holiday pay either if i am ill or want a break. i nether bunk off work for 9 months to have a baby or go sick claiming depression and stress if i balls up either and have my clients on my back in your case your bosses playing around with their desk toys. this recession is going to last another 5 years to 2018 mark this comment. you dont push prices up you make cuts and that is cuts in the money for old rope sitting about jobs and not the services. i am sure you will enjoy reading this post while some of you are working from home. i understand that you only go in the office about twice a week. nice world for some is it not????
Bunking off work for 9 months to have a baby. Words fail me.
Some councillors are a waste of space,in harbour ward we have 2 decent ward councillors,mary blandon and julia havis,both liberal democrats,both a credit to the community,whereas margaret fisher also a liberal democrat but a county councillor has repeatedly failed to get action in the same ward,footpaths have been in a poor state for several years,in effect the residents are not being listened to,my understanding is is that residents are considering putting up an independant candidate in the next council elections to stand against her to highlight the frustration felt that their corner is not being fought on important local issues.
[quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theequaliser1[/bold] wrote: you only need 1 councilor per ward and yes some of them are using the job as income and where claiming credits on the work involved. some wards have 3 of these herberts running the show. as for the grey suits just remember this in the last 5 years of this recession you have had your pay cheques at the end of every month. the majority of us who are not in your club dont have the comfort of money or food on the table week in week out. your two thirds 2/3rds gold plated pensions scheme paid on the backs of us is another afront that we are all being sickened off on a daily basis. when you retire you will lord over the masses with your Ford Mondeo every year and 4 holidays in Tarasamalata while we end up at center parcs. and when i say grey suits i mean all of you in the public sector. you might pay your council tax and other taxes by means of your wages via your labours to the state or system you are employed by. people like me are the wealth creators in society, i make the money from scratch there is no platinum plated gravy local authority or civil service job paying my way. and i get no sickness allowances or holiday pay either if i am ill or want a break. i nether bunk off work for 9 months to have a baby or go sick claiming depression and stress if i balls up either and have my clients on my back in your case your bosses playing around with their desk toys. this recession is going to last another 5 years to 2018 mark this comment. you dont push prices up you make cuts and that is cuts in the money for old rope sitting about jobs and not the services. i am sure you will enjoy reading this post while some of you are working from home. i understand that you only go in the office about twice a week. nice world for some is it not????[/p][/quote]Bunking off work for 9 months to have a baby. Words fail me.[/p][/quote]Some councillors are a waste of space,in harbour ward we have 2 decent ward councillors,mary blandon and julia havis,both liberal democrats,both a credit to the community,whereas margaret fisher also a liberal democrat but a county councillor has repeatedly failed to get action in the same ward,footpaths have been in a poor state for several years,in effect the residents are not being listened to,my understanding is is that residents are considering putting up an independant candidate in the next council elections to stand against her to highlight the frustration felt that their corner is not being fought on important local issues. co2
  • Score: 0

9:50pm Tue 15 Jan 13

jut1972 says...

CO2 - There is definitely too much siding with national parties at a local level.

So many of the local CBC cllrs also sit at ECC and so are split when it comes to recommending whats best for their wards. Take Anne Turrell, she is the myland councillor, CBC lead and an ECC representative. Where do her loyalties lie? She cant put Myland first if that disadvantages somewhere else in Colchester. Problem is that is what you want from a local councillor, to champion your area and to hell with the rest!

Independents have to be the way forward so many council decisions are made on party lines its ridiculous.
CO2 - There is definitely too much siding with national parties at a local level. So many of the local CBC cllrs also sit at ECC and so are split when it comes to recommending whats best for their wards. Take Anne Turrell, she is the myland councillor, CBC lead and an ECC representative. Where do her loyalties lie? She cant put Myland first if that disadvantages somewhere else in Colchester. Problem is that is what you want from a local councillor, to champion your area and to hell with the rest! Independents have to be the way forward so many council decisions are made on party lines its ridiculous. jut1972
  • Score: 0

8:53am Wed 16 Jan 13

Bobby Walker says...

I agree CO2 that it doesn't make much sense at a local level in Colchester.
The problem as ever is money. Political parties pay all the costs of standing for election. Independents have to raise the money themselves.
Political parties want local politics to be party political so that they have people to go out and campaign for them and fund raise.
The flow of information and ideas on the internet is making this feel a bit out of date.
I agree CO2 that it doesn't make much sense at a local level in Colchester. The problem as ever is money. Political parties pay all the costs of standing for election. Independents have to raise the money themselves. Political parties want local politics to be party political so that they have people to go out and campaign for them and fund raise. The flow of information and ideas on the internet is making this feel a bit out of date. Bobby Walker
  • Score: 0

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