Forum Replies Created
The headline for this topic is, I think misleading! Aaron Banks does not run rings around anyone at this hearing. All he does is throw out insults when he is cornered.
Totally agree. Banks stated before the hearing that he had every intention of being disruptive. All it did show to anyone who watched was an arrogant,ignorant man who resorted to insult after insult when put into an indefensible position. Walking out before the end of the session to attend a luncheon appointment was the ultimate show of contempt.
Ian Lucas behaved in a calm and dignified manner and should be applauded for not rising to the bait.
Even worse than the cost of the new frontage is the recommendation by Pritchard to keep the Executive Board at 10 members for the next 12 months and that the recommendation is being voted on by……..you’ve guessed it… the Executive Board!! Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas. We as Council Tax payers MUST do something to end the autocratic rule of WCBC where 10 hand picked, like minded individuals hold all the cards and the remaining Councillors have to suck it up time after time without any democratic recourse.
The merging of just 2 portfolios into 1 would ensure the availability of a very much needed service to the citizens of Wrexham.May 22, 2018 at 7:19 am in reply to: Will Cllr Pritchard loose the Leadership of the Council tomorrow!! #149431
If the regular apres meeting coffee jaunt into Wrexham town centre yesterday by the four riders of the apocalypse is anything to go by, I wouldn’t hold your breath. I think that you will see very little change except for greater roles for the already identified sycophants.May 3, 2018 at 8:35 am in reply to: Rough Sleeping Censorship on Wrexham Town Matters Group #148506
I have had several posts deleted from ‘Wrexham Matters – almost instantaneously. The reason? Because I have had the audacity to post ideas or observations contrary to the ‘hail fellow well met,backslapping ideology of what has almost become a personal fiefdom.
Matt is absolutely correct in all his assertions and observations and I totally endorse what he has to say.
I suppose it could be argued that there are two interpretations to the meaning of the word ‘matters’, the one that I would use – things appertaining to Wrexham in the most general sense and the other – statements that only portray Wrexham in glowing terms.
Perhaps it is encumber on Nigel now that he has decided to be the draconian arbiter on censorship, which of the loose definitions he expects contributors to adhere to. Then we may see the worth or otherwise of making pertinent comment.
The CEO of Sainsbury’s on TV this morning gave a categoric assurance that if the merger was to go ahead, that there would be no store closures or job losses as a result.
He went on to say that prices of staple products are likely to reduce in price because of the joint ability to negotiate more favourable terms with major suppliers.
It is purely semantic as the merger is unlikely to receive approval from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, according to knowledgeable commentators.
I cringe whenever I read how great a town Wrexham is to live, work and shop, especially the shop element of the argument.
The town is inundated with pound shops and charity stores, a situation that is likely to be further exacerbated if the application by Nightingale House is approved by our illustrious Planning Committee.
Whilst I have every respect for the good work carried out by Nightingale House, enough is enough!
The design and access statement in support of the application reads thus:
“It is considered that the proposed change of use will offer suitable commercial premises that will encourage visits to the town centre itself and extend the time spent in the application building” Who writes this stuff? Unadulterated bull!!!
Perhaps Nigel Lewis et al would be kind enough to let us all now how this proposal fits in with his vision of Wrexham being a ‘great’ place to shop when virtually 1 in 4 outlets are occupied by premises mentioned in the opening paragraph?
Judging by the inane comments from Cllr. Bithell recently and unfortunately, over the longer term, is he fast becoming the local version of Boris Johnson?
Not sure what point you are trying to make here! I thought with the recent and ongoing inclement weather that the country is experiencing and likely to experience in the future, provision for homeless and destitute persons would be a welcome initiative.
I fail to understand how you seem able to make a quantum leap from 4 containers proposed to be sited at the rear of a building to your, quite frankly, ridiculous header introducing this topic to the forum.
At least one thing good comes from this thread. It gives us all a break from you bleating ad nauseum about the bloody markets.
- This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by BenjaminM. Reason: Spelling amend
I think I realise and the general population realise why Tories and closet Tories are against lowering the voting age to 16 for elections.
In the last couple of years we as a nation have witnessed a dramatic rise in social conscience as illustrated by the number of young people who ARE engaging in political matters and taking a stance on the total inequalities purveyed by the encumbent government.
I watched David Lidington at last Wednesday’s PMQ’s where he floundered when trying to put a reasoned argument as to why Tories do not support the proposed change. What he failed to mention was that Tory party members have a right to vote when electing a new party leader at 15. Is it so different to voting for a Member of Parliament to represent his constituents
The fact of the matter is, is that the traditional blue rinse, old electors are drawing ever closer to drawing their last breath and the Tories are petrified that their traditional supporters are diminishing on a daily basis. Fact is, it scares them to death.
Th suggestion made by Alun that persons aged 16/17 be permitted to vote if they are paying taxes rates is obscene in the extreme. Perhaps we should disenfranchise those that in receipt of state benefits or earning less than £20K to help ensure that the Tories would be more likely to retain a tenuous foothold on power.
We are all citizens of this Country and for the older population to shape the future of our descendants is both corrupt and morally wrong. The future belongs to our children and our children’s children.
- This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by BenjaminM. Reason: Spell check
Yet another example of a half cocked attempt to discredit teaching staff.
If any of the ‘contributors’ to this post had bothered to find out what must be taken into account when the decision is made to close or partially close a school, they may not have bothered to air misguided views.
Child welfare: Children can get to and from school safely,the site is safe, there are enough staff to supervise effectively.
Health and safety is given a high priority in law so potentially hazardous conditions such as playgrounds that have turned into an ice rink or insufficient heating can also be a factor.
It seems to me that at this time, head teachers or a directive from WCBC have more than sufficient grounds to authorise the closure or is the real reason for the moan that it inconveniences some parents who like to offload their children for the day?
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .