On 24 Apr 2021 15:40:45 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 24 Apr 2021 at 13:38:07 BST, T i m wrote:

On 24 Apr 2021 11:51:47 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

But they can 'turn up' then and be party to what's going on?

They're not a party to what is going on. They're a spectator.

Nice try but no cigar:

"party to (something)
Involved in something, often something clandestine."

AISB, they are a spectator.

And AISB, they aren't as far as both potentially managing the
ongoing's and therefore the impact thereafter. Have you never seen
someone ask another to 'have a word in private' or wondered why they
might do that?

Unless invited to address the meeting.

See above. 'Most people' *will* modify their words / actions if they
are being monitored by someone (anyone) who may have the ability to
'report' the nuisances of any 'goings on'.

In those
cases, usually, they say their piece and then they're done.

Yes.

They aren't
allowed to take part in any subsequent discussion or debate amoongst the
councillors.

They don't need to (to have some impact) as long as they are present.

Attendance is being 'involved in'.

Not unless they're invited to speak.

Nope. That's not what the dictionary says.

"involved, adjective, someone who is involved in something takes part
in it", It doesn't require an 'active part.


Even if
they aren't (always) allowed to actively participate the chances are
any discussions are likely to (try to) stay above board if there are
people with a vested / counter interest present.

Their presence won't change anything since (a) such meetings are minuted

Ah, and the minutes are a complete transcription of everything that
was said, intimated and gestured are they?

Minutes never are.

So can't offer a full and complete reiteration of the proceedings.

the press will likely be present

Part of my point re potential 'impact'

The press will be there if something that interests them is up for discussion.

The press *may* be there ...

Not otherwise. And not because Joe Soap happens to be there.

Of course it will as they have no idea of 'Joe Soaps' intentions.

and
(c) so will oppostion councillors on at least most councils.

And part of my question, where there *are* no opposition councillors.

I can't immediately find such a council;

Why would that impact my question? The candidate representing the one
of many wards who rang me personally highlighted the fact that they
could easily loose it.

I thought Hull was one such but
apparently not. In any case, where one party holds all the seats you will find
that it splits into factions. So there will always be an opposition of some
sort.

Infighting you mean? So yet another suggestion that my vote will make
little

And by doing so and showing how
easy it was and how there was no oversight and no accountablity,

Which isn't actually true of course.

Yes it is. MEPs don't have to justify their expenses claims.

So, they could put in anything they liked and would never get pulled
up over it?

he showed how
rotten the entire structure was and remains so to this day.

Whist benefiting from it personally. Hypocrisy anyone?

So, what have we learned so far.

You never learn anything, so the idea of you doing such a summary is risible.

I think you are getting confused with me just not rolling over and
accepting anything you say.

Anyone can turn up to (most?) council meetings and monitor the
progress (and therefore potentially impact the outcome, even if not
allowed to directly participate) therefore being a councillor may not
offer any real advantage.

As a councillor you get to affect policy and decide about things. And vote on
them.

Appreciated. But what about one councillor versus 9?

Councillors are unlikely to champion any cause that is proven to be
beneficial to the people, (like their health, the environment and
animal suffering) if it conflicts with their own morals and ethics.

This is a mere assertion on your part not backed by by anything.

Agreed ... other than from my personal experience of / with 'people'.

How many
councillors do you know,

3?

and with how many have you discussed what they
actually do at the council,

2.

or asked them what they have achieved or are
working on.

1.

So, the conclusion could be that only maybe a coalition of 'parties'
may be worth having but could in turn hamper and positive projects
'because'.

'because' what?

No, that was it, 'because' ... the existence of something (a coalition
in this case).

eg, The whole thing is a cluster**** and therefore I have no interest
in it (outside 'making the effort' to spoil my paper etc).

So that's your conclusion,

So far, yes.

based on no evidence,

See above.

no research,

Correct (explained previously).

no knowledge of
what councillors do

See above. We have known one personally for over 30 years and spent
time with them several times.

or how they organise themselves.

See above.

Typical of you, really.

Or not, now you know how much of an ass your assumptions have made of
you.

'making the effort' to spoil your paper, eh?

Yup, effort over and above all those who don't bother or *even*, put
no effort into actually placing their vote.

Gosh, I'll alert the media to
your tremendous sacrifice and contribution to democracy and making the world a
better, safer place to live in.

That's a bit OTT considering?

Thanks for continuing to live down to my expectations.

And thank you for confirming my real-world understanding of how
pointless it all is (my vote) in this case (specifically).

I will still bother though as I want to maintain my right, even if
it's currently not democracy as I would like to play a part in.

Cheers, T i m