On 22/04/2021 13:55, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:53:37 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 10:21, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:06:22 +0100, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
wrote:

Mine is further than that away, but the problem really is from what I see,
the proliferation of parties and independents standing these days, We have
animal welfare, Christian parties, Rejoin the eu parties UKIP and Monster
Raving Loony who are putting up 13 candidates in one ward near me.

Ah, the solution is easy (apparently Brian). You have to stop whatever
you are doing / prefer to do to and research

That's a bit rich for someone who admits to being too lazy or ignorant
to do his own research.

You really are thick aren't you (or just a left brainer) to not be
able to spot that as sarcasm.

Sarcasm stops being sarcasm from someone who is so blatantly two-faced.

Even the big 'apparently' wasn't a good enough clue for you.

I really do pity you, having to live with your 'problem' in a world
where so much information is conveyed between the lines. ;-(

Feel free to pity, I don't feel in need of any.

While you are down there faceplanting, could you give 'Andrew' a hand
up. ;-)

Only you can see the faceplant.

Hallucinations are more a feature of a B12 deficiency:

https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/d...psych.12060144

Yesterday I had southern flavoured coated fish free meals. They were
utterly tasteless and without texture. I can see why fanatical vegans
are so filled with hate and envy where we're allowed to enjoy the real
thing.

On 22/04/2021 13:51, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:22:33 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 09:05, T i m wrote:

So, you put yourself up as a local councillor and get voted in by 17%
of the electorate for that ward ... do you think you now represent the
majority of that ward?

No. You represent *all* of the people in the ward.

Oh, you left brainers ... you are such hard work ... ;-(

You really only get / deal in black and white don't you, thinking that
'representing' in practice is the same as representing in goals,
ethics, morals and principals.

It's rather like the Armed Forces fighting an enemy - they fight for
*all* the people, not just a sub-set.

Again, only in practice, not principle. No slaughterman is killing any
animals for me, even though they are killing animals. There will be
loads of people who are very much against 'our boys' being at risk for
whatever the reason.

So, I want to reduce animal cruelty and suffering and a councilor
get's voted in who happens to be a dairy farmer. How much positive
representation and support do you think I will get from them re
closing all dairys in the area?

Well, as mentioned the councillor will represent all the people in the
ward and will try to do what is best for them as a class. Acknowledging
that there are many dairy farmers, and many dependant jobs directly and
indirectly supported by the industry, you would hope that they would
point out too their constituent that the confiscation of private
property, the destruction of jobs, or the interference in legitimate
private business that help keep a nation fed, would not be in the public
interest. Perhaps also highlighting that the enterprises also help to
maintain local green spaces and put agricultural land to good economic
use, which is also beneficial to the local community.

In other words they would need to handle such requests with similar
sensitivity to they way they handle the ones that ask them to evict all
the Jews & black people...




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 22/04/2021 13:51, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:22:33 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 09:05, T i m wrote:

So, you put yourself up as a local councillor and get voted in by 17%
of the electorate for that ward ... do you think you now represent the
majority of that ward?

No. You represent *all* of the people in the ward.

Oh, you left brainers ... you are such hard work ... ;-(

You really only get / deal in black and white don't you, thinking that
'representing' in practice is the same as representing in goals,
ethics, morals and principals.

We see all sides of the coin and we are not fanatics, exuding hatred
because our loved ones allow us to eat meat.

It's rather like the Armed Forces fighting an enemy - they fight for
*all* the people, not just a sub-set.

Again, only in practice, not principle. No slaughterman is killing any
animals for me, even though they are killing animals.

That is your family's choice, and theirs to enforce on you a meat free
diet. Apart from your dog of course.

There will be
loads of people who are very much against 'our boys' being at risk for
whatever the reason.

Quite, but that is a separate issue.

So, I want to reduce animal cruelty and suffering and a councilor
get's voted in who happens to be a dairy farmer. How much positive
representation and support do you think I will get from them re
closing all dairys in the area?

Another lie, when you have admitted you don't care about animal welfare
while the animal is alive. You only concerns is centred on my loved ones
allow me to eat meat.

If you truly want to improve animal welfare then support campaigns to
improve it. But in reality animal cruelty serves your purpose of your
futile attempts to ban a natural balanced diet through your fanaticism
and envy.

(Don't bother answering as it's been obvious for a long time (inc in
this thread) you have no idea about any of it or actually being
interested in the spirit of the question).

Why not bother? The spirit of the question is that you want to spoil
your vote as a means of protesting the outcome, whichever way it goes.

In much the same way you whinge about Brexit yet admit to spoiling your
ballot paper.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:04:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 13:51, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:22:33 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 09:05, T i m wrote:

So, you put yourself up as a local councillor and get voted in by 17%
of the electorate for that ward ... do you think you now represent the
majority of that ward?

No. You represent *all* of the people in the ward.

Oh, you left brainers ... you are such hard work ... ;-(

You really only get / deal in black and white don't you, thinking that
'representing' in practice is the same as representing in goals,
ethics, morals and principals.

It's rather like the Armed Forces fighting an enemy - they fight for
*all* the people, not just a sub-set.

Again, only in practice, not principle. No slaughterman is killing any
animals for me, even though they are killing animals. There will be
loads of people who are very much against 'our boys' being at risk for
whatever the reason.

So, I want to reduce animal cruelty and suffering and a councilor
get's voted in who happens to be a dairy farmer. How much positive
representation and support do you think I will get from them re
closing all dairys in the area?

Well, as mentioned the councillor will represent all the people in the
ward and will try to do what is best for them as a class. Acknowledging
that there are many dairy farmers, and many dependant jobs directly and
indirectly supported by the industry,

Yes, as there were in the 'slavery industry' or the are in the 'human
trafficking industries.

you would hope that they would
point out too their constituent that the confiscation of private
property,

Who is going to do that then?

the destruction of jobs,

Why would that happen then? They have to carry on exploiting others
because that's all they know how to do? That no 'dairy farmer /
worker' has ever been able to do anything else?

or the interference in legitimate
private business

Legitimate in a legal sense possibly and for the moment. Not
legitimate in a moral or need so justification sense (in 2021).

that help keep a nation fed,

'Helped. No longer relevant in 2021.

would not be in the public
interest.

Of course it would, if the alternatives provided the same solution
with lower cost to the environment, resources and animal suffering and
exploitation.

Perhaps also highlighting that the enterprises also help to
maintain local green spaces

In your dreams. They help maintain the construction of concrete feed
lots over the very thing you would hope we would protect.

and put agricultural land to good economic
use,

By wasting it providing something that nobody needs and is already in
decline? How progressive is that (not)?

which is also beneficial to the local community.

It's only 'beneficial' to those party to the exploitation. It's
certainly not beneficial to those who are exploited and have to die
simply to produce something that was never intended for us in the
first place (of all the animal rights issues). [1]

Anyway, you have actually answered my question in that it's pointless
to ask them to consider anything like that as they would be just as
indoctrinated as most backward looking people. And the changes aren't
going to be an 'if' but a 'when'.

In other words they would need to handle such requests with similar
sensitivity to they way they handle the ones that ask them to evict all
the Jews & black people...

More like if they wanted to continue the suffering and exploitation of
Jews and black people.

There are victims here but they aren't any of those earning a living
off the suffering of others, any more than the slave traders were
victims when they had to give up their career choice.

Cheers, T i m

[1] If 'most people' wouldn't support the force feeding of ducks and
geese to cause them to have enlarged livers to yield more liver for
pate, why would they support the feeding of animals with unnatural
foods to cause them to put on weight faster or to carry 10x more milk
than they would ever do 'naturally' (a 'baby food' that was never
meant for us in the first place)?

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 05:59:54 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

https://metro.co.uk/2015/05/09/voter...ry-mp-5188845/
I did wonder what the person spoiling his paper intented.

I'm betting he didn't want to vote tory, but I can't be sure.

I was surprised by the level of detail in the artistic rendition on
the ballot paper as shown in the Metro link you provided ... until I
read the caption below the picture which read "What the ballot paper
penis may have looked like".

Sounds like someone at the paper was asked to draw an "artists'
impression" of the spoilt paper!

On 22/04/2021 18:27, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:04:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 13:51, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:22:33 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 09:05, T i m wrote:

So, you put yourself up as a local councillor and get voted in by 17%
of the electorate for that ward ... do you think you now represent the
majority of that ward?

No. You represent *all* of the people in the ward.

Oh, you left brainers ... you are such hard work ... ;-(

You really only get / deal in black and white don't you, thinking that
'representing' in practice is the same as representing in goals,
ethics, morals and principals.

It's rather like the Armed Forces fighting an enemy - they fight for
*all* the people, not just a sub-set.

Again, only in practice, not principle. No slaughterman is killing any
animals for me, even though they are killing animals. There will be
loads of people who are very much against 'our boys' being at risk for
whatever the reason.

So, I want to reduce animal cruelty and suffering and a councilor
get's voted in who happens to be a dairy farmer. How much positive
representation and support do you think I will get from them re
closing all dairys in the area?

Well, as mentioned the councillor will represent all the people in the
ward and will try to do what is best for them as a class. Acknowledging
that there are many dairy farmers, and many dependant jobs directly and
indirectly supported by the industry,

Yes, as there were in the 'slavery industry' or the are in the 'human
trafficking industries.

Which have been outlawed for a very long time.

you would hope that they would
point out too their constituent that the confiscation of private
property,

Who is going to do that then?

the destruction of jobs,

Why would that happen then? They have to carry on exploiting others
because that's all they know how to do? That no 'dairy farmer /
worker' has ever been able to do anything else?

I don't see any exploitation in the dairy industry, the workers are free
to leave and perform another job.

or the interference in legitimate
private business

Legitimate in a legal sense possibly and for the moment. Not
legitimate in a moral or need so justification sense (in 2021).

That doesn't make sense.

that help keep a nation fed,

'Helped. No longer relevant in 2021.

It is all the more relevant with more moths to feed in the world.

would not be in the public
interest.

Of course it would, if the alternatives provided the same solution
with lower cost to the environment, resources and animal suffering and
exploitation.

Since when have you been concerned over animal suffering? If you were
truly concerned over the environment, you wouldn't eat or drink soy
products.

Perhaps also highlighting that the enterprises also help to
maintain local green spaces

In your dreams. They help maintain the construction of concrete feed
lots over the very thing you would hope we would protect.

Through farm subsidies green spaces are maintained, pastures are also
kept fallow.

and put agricultural land to good economic
use,

By wasting it providing something that nobody needs and is already in
decline? How progressive is that (not)?

Going by the increases in land prices I don't see any decline.

which is also beneficial to the local community.

It's only 'beneficial' to those party to the exploitation. It's
certainly not beneficial to those who are exploited and have to die
simply to produce something that was never intended for us in the
first place (of all the animal rights issues). [1]

As we have established, there is no exploitation of farm workers.

Anyway, you have actually answered my question in that it's pointless
to ask them to consider anything like that as they would be just as
indoctrinated as most backward looking people. And the changes aren't
going to be an 'if' but a 'when'.

There will be no change where fanatics alienate the change you dream of.

In other words they would need to handle such requests with similar
sensitivity to they way they handle the ones that ask them to evict all
the Jews & black people...

More like if they wanted to continue the suffering and exploitation of
Jews and black people.

Who knows, perhaps farmers will become a protected group.

There are victims here but they aren't any of those earning a living
off the suffering of others, any more than the slave traders were
victims when they had to give up their career choice.

You could say all business owners exploit those they employ. You won't
get very far with that.

Cheers, T i m

[1] If 'most people' wouldn't support the force feeding of ducks and
geese to cause them to have enlarged livers to yield more liver for
pate, why would they support the feeding of animals with unnatural
foods to cause them to put on weight faster or to carry 10x more milk
than they would ever do 'naturally' (a 'baby food' that was never
meant for us in the first place)?

1) You support the forced feeding of geese
2) You admit to not caring about animal welfare while the animal is alive
3) You are in denial that most western people have inherited a gene to
digest milk in adulthood, therefore natural for adults to consume milk.

You haven't thought about this, have you?

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2021 10:03, Robin wrote:
On 22/04/2021 09:31, Martin Brown wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:47, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:25:41 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.

Unfortunately wouldn't understand even if I tried to explain it to
you. ;-(

The problem with spoiling your vote is that they are not compelled to
report a high number of spoiled ballot papers.

Returning officers must by law draw up a statement showing the number of
ballot papers rejected (under several heads).

They might, but the newspapers don't report them.

Doesnt really matter now that so few bother with newspapers.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:17:08 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

Namely that you
don't have information on the what the future will actually hold, so you
can't vote for it?

Not even 'information' ... but any idea and as far as Brexit was
concerned ... none of us do to this day.

I get the impression that democracy is too difficult
a concept for you to grasp?

I know 100% that you are a stupid pointless troll.

Best perhaps that you stay home and ignore
it all?

That strawman is the best you can offer as an answer to my question is
it?

Or pull your favourite stunt of 'spoiling your paper'?

I bet you thought you had just worked that out for yourself didn't
you?

The fact that I stated it in the first line of my post whooshing you
completely, because of how thick you really are?

Now, whilst I'm flattered you are so fascinated and obsessed by me you
have to hang onto my every word, how about actually trying to answer
my question rather than faceplanting *again*? ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:15:21 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the useless trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:52:29 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:


On 22/04/2021 09:55, T i m wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 23:15:23 +0100, Dave W
wrote:


On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:25:56 +0100, T i m wrote:


I didn't say I drew anything on my paper (and certainly nothing that
would perk your obvious penis interest), I said I 'spoiled it' and I
normally do so simply by writing 'NOTA' underneath.

Cheers, T i m

What does 'NOTA' mean?


And you think I'm 'bonkers' ...


We all do, it was a simple question. Even Rod had the good sense to
answer it.


I really didn't know what it meant, but without Googling it, asked the
question so that Tim might consider that some of the people who were
up for election might not know either, thereby rendering his protest
even more useless than it is.
--
Dave W

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 23:09:21 +0100, Dave W
wrote:

snip

I really didn't know what it meant, but without Googling it, asked the
question

After calling *me* bonkers?

so that Tim might consider that some of the people who were
up for election might not know either,

Bwhahahaha.... what, *and* they would be here reading this!

thereby rendering his protest
even more useless than it is.

IYO I'm guessing (look it up). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 22/04/2021 23:32, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 23:09:21 +0100, Dave W
wrote:

snip

I really didn't know what it meant, but without Googling it, asked the
question

After calling *me* bonkers?

so that Tim might consider that some of the people who were
up for election might not know either,

Bwhahahaha.... what, *and* they would be here reading this!

thereby rendering his protest
even more useless than it is.

IYO I'm guessing (look it up). ;-)

Last time I looked it was a province in Japan.

Do you enjoy being so unhelpful to fellow men?

On 21/04/2021 18:01, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:01:23 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip crazy stuff, mostly unread

Good of you to snip the crazy stuff, much appreciated.
Unfortunately Dave and John's rational thoughts were snipped too.
Perhaps you could take more care in future.

On 22/04/2021 13:58, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:30:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/04/2021 23:15, Dave W wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:25:56 +0100, T i m wrote:


I didn't say I drew anything on my paper (and certainly nothing that
would perk your obvious penis interest), I said I 'spoiled it' and I
normally do so simply by writing 'NOTA' underneath.

Cheers, T i m

What does 'NOTA' mean?

None
Of
The
Above

What is funny is people who try to have a go at me on something like
this but who don't know a very commonly used acronym associated with
the same subject!

No wonder that don't get my question! ;-)

Obvious really, ****.

Cannae
Understand
Nutter
T i m

On 22/04/2021 20:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

The difference between us here is that I know I don't know it all, and I
also know that no-one can know it all, whereas you took the fabulous
position of demanding time and again that you needed to know it all in
order to make a decision - which of course is an impossibility. You
therefore created for yourself the very excuse you needed in order to
avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the way froward, and
covered that position with the most stupid comments such as those
regarding majorities.

In similar fashion, you appear to have been brow-beaten into becoming a
vegan, and have covered your dislike of this by accusing all and sundry
of rape and murder, among many other things and using wild exaggerations
and unsupported claims to try and justify your position, trying to shout
down those that show up the paucity of your thinking by crying "left
brainer!", "faceplant!", "you don't get the spirit of it!" as well as
other assorted ad-homs.

Have you ever thought of standing on your own two feet and being your
own person?


--
Spike

On 23/04/2021 09:44, Spike wrote:
On 22/04/2021 20:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

The difference between us here is that I know I don't know it all, and I
also know that no-one can know it all, whereas you took the fabulous
position of demanding time and again that you needed to know it all in
order to make a decision - which of course is an impossibility. You
therefore created for yourself the very excuse you needed in order to
avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the way froward, and
covered that position with the most stupid comments such as those
regarding majorities.

In similar fashion, you appear to have been brow-beaten into becoming a
vegan, and have covered your dislike of this by accusing all and sundry
of rape and murder, among many other things and using wild exaggerations
and unsupported claims to try and justify your position, trying to shout
down those that show up the paucity of your thinking by crying "left
brainer!", "faceplant!", "you don't get the spirit of it!" as well as
other assorted ad-homs.

Have you ever thought of standing on your own two feet and being your
own person?


T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

As a Transcendental Idealist, Veganism is just a word, which may or may
not more or less accurately represent something in a Real World, which
is in itself somewhat of a supposition, based on inadequate data...


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 23 Apr 2021 08:25:45 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

What d'ye expect from someone whose purpsoe in life appears to be to find new
things to whinge about,

Aww bless. I ask a valid question, suitably marked OT and with a
pretty clear title and because you are unable to answer the question
(other that regurgitating your entrenched / conditioned POV), you
start with the ad hominem.

which become things to T r o l l about, who can't
express himself clearly,

I don't think it could have been much clearer. Maybe you have some
comprehension issues, or maybe your problem is deeper? ;-(

says he can't make a decision

Nope, not 'can't', 'unable to do so rationally'.

because he doesn't know
enough about whatever it is,

Correct. Just because I'm being honest, that makes me wrong does it?
Just because you are a left brainer and enjoy stats ... and 'research'
into what is likely to be impossible to pin down, you *think* everone
should and will do the same as you when they patently don't.

then expects other people to do his research for
him,

Nope, again, please don't be embarrassed you neither understand the
question, nor can provide a viable answer. I'm just aware that it's
one rabbit hole there is little point me going down and nothing anyone
has said so far has convinced me otherwise. The best I have gleaned is
that nothing can guaranteed or for certain ... and I'm not a gambler.

and then when he is given useful and pertinent information,

Bwhahaha ... a *CLASSIC* left brainer pov there ... if I don't do
*exactly* what you say then I'm the one who is wrong, even when it
offers no viable answer to my question.

It's *EXACTLY* the same as the Linux geeks who 'suggest you learn
Linux' when you ask a question around something that shouldn't require
you to learn anything in the first place!

whines about
that too.

Of course you would see it that way (see above).

I suggest you just stick to sharpening the pencils and counting
ballots (and probably re-counting several times, just to be sure).
People still really aren't your thing eh (Goblin). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:15:34 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 21/04/2021 18:01, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:01:23 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip crazy stuff, mostly unread

Good of you to snip the crazy stuff, much appreciated.
Unfortunately Dave and John's rational thoughts were snipped too.
Perhaps you could take more care in future.

Oh how I laughed, I thought my trousers would never dry!

Now, 'Richard', any chance of you having a go at answering the actual
question?

I'll re-state it so you won't be 'confused' like the other trolls.

Would a councilor from an opposition party who represented one ward
out of the rest who were under the control of a single party, have any
more power 'as opposition' than those candidates who didn't gain a
seat (or whatever it's called in Local elections)?

Do representatives from the other parties still turn up to important
meetings?

Thanks for playing.

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:44:00 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 20:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

The difference between us here is that I know I don't know it all,

OK, that's not a difference then.

and I
also know that no-one can know it all,

See above.

whereas you took the fabulous
position of demanding time and again that you needed to know it all in
order to make a decision

Nope, complete and utter lies (again). I would have liked to have a
'reasonable idea' of any potential outcome of anything I play an
active part in, something that most responsible citizens with some
level of social awareness would want / do.

- which of course is an impossibility.

Of course and hence why it was never a target. Please stop lying.

You
therefore created for yourself the very excuse you needed in order to
avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the way froward,

Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important. You
aren't tossing a coin because you *know* the right thing to do. You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options. You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?

and
covered that position with the most stupid comments such as those
regarding majorities.

IYO of course. The strange thing is, having a significant majority is
used all around the world to determine the outcome of many such
things, including here.

snip further trolling BS

I love how you trolls start with the 'it seems to me' (or similar) and
then build on that as if it's fact, when it's *always* complete and
utter BS!!

Are you really convincing yourselves that what you are saying is
actually anything other than complete bollox?

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

Oh the irony! This is coming from a left brainer who lives in a
basement!

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

We all know 'Pebbles' is a cartoon character. Veganisn actually exists
and has been around for a very long time with many million people
round the world you still have empathy, compassion and benevolence who
put the suffering of others over their own selfish and indoctrinated
desires.

As a Transcendental Idealist, Veganism is just a word, which may or may
not more or less accurately represent something in a Real World, which
is in itself somewhat of a supposition, based on inadequate data...

Wow. I didn't think it was possible to put that much compete and utter
BS into a paragraph!

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

Therefore, some people choose not to do that, not only to align their
morals with their actions (few meat eaters could kill livestock
themselves or would eat a cat or dog), but improve their own health,
reduce resource consumption, reduce pollution and environmental damage
but most importantly, not take what was never ours in the first place.

So, replace 'vegan' with 'not hurting and exploiting animals' and try
justifying it with yer bs again.

Oh, and spare me the 'I have canine teeth', or 'we need to eat meat to
survive' as they are both BS for the vast majority of the worlds
population in 2021.

ALL of the science is pointing us towards a 'plant based diet' and the
logical conclusion to that is undoing of the cognitive dissonance that
we have been conditioned into from the time when the alternative
choices were fewer, the population much much smaller and our
understanding of what we *will* need to do to feed the world
population. That doesn't include feeding more livestock than humans,
food grown on land that can grow human consumable food instead and us
trying to get the value of that food (and other 'commodities') from
slaughtering billions of animals every year.

Cheers, T i m

On 22/04/2021 13:29, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:05:47 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

The fact that he intends to waste his time walking to the polling
station

We will be taking the dog out past there 'anyway' so it's no waste of
time. Faceplant No1

simply to scrawl

Write neatly (Faceplant No2)

What is the point of writing "Faceplant No2" on someone elses
property though ?.


Could be as good a system as we have now.

So, you go from trying to spread FUD with your ad-hominems and then
agree with me. You need help (Rod?). ;-(

Cheers, T i m


Who is Rod ?. Have you thought of having your lithium prescription
professionally checked ?.

On 23/04/2021 06:15, Richard wrote:
On 21/04/2021 18:01, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:01:23 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip crazy stuff, mostly unread

Good of you to snip the crazy stuff, much appreciated.
Unfortunately Dave and John's rational thoughts were snipped too.
Perhaps you could take more care in future.

:-)

On Thursday, 22 April 2021 at 13:58:39 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:30:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/04/2021 23:15, Dave W wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:25:56 +0100, T i m wrote:


I didn't say I drew anything on my paper (and certainly nothing that
would perk your obvious penis interest), I said I 'spoiled it' and I
normally do so simply by writing 'NOTA' underneath.

Cheers, T i m

What does 'NOTA' mean?

None
Of
The
Above
What is funny is people who try to have a go at me on something like
this but who don't know a very commonly used acronym associated with
the same subject!

No wonder that don't get my question! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Can you put NOTA at the top of the voting paper ?

On Thursday, 22 April 2021 at 13:51:50 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:22:33 +0000, Spike
wrote:
On 22/04/2021 09:05, T i m wrote:

So, you put yourself up as a local councillor and get voted in by 17%
of the electorate for that ward ... do you think you now represent the
majority of that ward?

No. You represent *all* of the people in the ward.
Oh, you left brainers ... you are such hard work ... ;-(

You really only get / deal in black and white don't you, thinking that
'representing' in practice is the same as representing in goals,
ethics, morals and principals.

It's rather like the Armed Forces fighting an enemy - they fight for
*all* the people, not just a sub-set.
Again, only in practice, not principle. No slaughterman is killing any
animals for me, even though they are killing animals.

So, I want to reduce animal cruelty and suffering and a councilor
get's voted in who happens to be a dairy farmer. How much positive
representation and support do you think I will get from them re
closing all dairys in the area?

But supporting a ragime that is using it's members money to make slaugheter cheap and efficient is OK then ?
Look at who eats the most meat in the EU, Denmark Germany, italy france they all want cheap meat for thier citizens
So if everyone in the club pays their tax in to the slaughter pot this cheap meat can be achieved
This club gives around $800 per year per cow subsidy to farmers so the club can provide cheap
dairy products to some 3rd world countires and to Russia. Look up the common agricultural policy
You argee with this too as you wanted to remain in this club.
Only a right brainer would claim to support animal walfare and then want to stay in a club that promotes the oppersite.


(Don't bother answering as it's been obvious for a long time (inc in
this thread) you have no idea about any of it or actually being
interested in the spirit of the question).

Well you never answered mine when you calim a NOTA means something in a ballot
on whether you want to saty in the EU or Leave the EU
what exactly is another option that is out of the box thinking ?
Take a shot, have a shave, have a wank

No it's draw a penis that is a NOTA isn't it.


Cheers, T i m

On Thursday, 22 April 2021 at 19:19:46 UTC+1, Caecilius wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 05:59:54 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

https://metro.co.uk/2015/05/09/voter...ry-mp-5188845/
I did wonder what the person spoiling his paper intented.

I'm betting he didn't want to vote tory, but I can't be sure.

I was surprised by the level of detail in the artistic rendition on
the ballot paper as shown in the Metro link you provided ... until I
read the caption below the picture which read "What the ballot paper
penis may have looked like".

Sounds like someone at the paper was asked to draw an "artists'
impression" of the spoilt paper!

I had heard that the penis had been completely in the box so was counted as a vote for that councillor.
If it had been partly drawn outside then it wouldn't get counted.

But I'm not sure if pubic hair is counted as part of the penis either, or wheather the ballot
paper was allowed to be shown publicly so I wasn;t really sure whether the metro
had an artistic licence to draw a penis to simulate what it might have looked like.


But the FACT was that the returning officer at the polling station counted theb penis draw in the box as a vote,
and I don;t think anyone really kn ows whether that was the voters intention.
At a guess I'd say NO

On Thursday, 22 April 2021 at 23:09:25 UTC+1, Dave W wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:52:29 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:
On 22/04/2021 09:55, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 23:15:23 +0100, Dave W
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:25:56 +0100, T i m wrote:


I didn't say I drew anything on my paper (and certainly nothing that
would perk your obvious penis interest), I said I 'spoiled it' and I
normally do so simply by writing 'NOTA' underneath.

Cheers, T i m

What does 'NOTA' mean?

And you think I'm 'bonkers' ...

We all do, it was a simple question. Even Rod had the good sense to
answer it.
I really didn't know what it meant, but without Googling it, asked the
question so that Tim might consider that some of the people who were
up for election might not know either, thereby rendering his protest
even more useless than it is.

Is that actually possible ;-)

LOL= Lots of Love

or sorry back to NOTA

https://www.nota.co.uk/training/


--
Dave W

On 22/04/2021 15:04, Fredxx wrote:

Only you can see the faceplant.

He can't. Whatever pathological or mental issue he is incubating,
he will be the *last* one to recognise it.

Hallucinations are more a feature of a B12 deficiency:

https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/d...psych.12060144


Also sub-acute hepatitis, pre-alzheimers, manic depression and plenty
of other pathological diseases or syndromes.

He really is losing his marbles and like most people in that situation
will be the last to realise it.



Yesterday I had southern flavoured coated fish free meals. They were
utterly tasteless and without texture. I can see why fanatical vegans
are so filled with hate and envy where we're allowed to enjoy the real
thing.

If you must eat banana flowers, why on earth attempt to flavour it and
pass it of as 'fish'. Find another name for it.

On 23/04/2021 11:44, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 22 April 2021 at 13:58:39 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:30:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/04/2021 23:15, Dave W wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:25:56 +0100, T i m wrote:


I didn't say I drew anything on my paper (and certainly nothing that
would perk your obvious penis interest), I said I 'spoiled it' and I
normally do so simply by writing 'NOTA' underneath.

Cheers, T i m

What does 'NOTA' mean?

None
Of
The
Above
What is funny is people who try to have a go at me on something like
this but who don't know a very commonly used acronym associated with
the same subject!

No wonder that don't get my question! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Can you put NOTA at the top of the voting paper ?


Or simply not bother to vote. Same result.

On 22/04/2021 13:51, T i m wrote:

So, I want to reduce animal cruelty and suffering and a councilor
get's voted in who happens to be a dairy farmer. How much positive
representation and support do you think I will get from them re
closing all dairys in the area?


Have you ever spent any time on a dairy farm ?. One that is run
as a business that is, not a 'hobby farm'.

If you had you would realise that it is a 16 hour day, 365 days/per
year operation. You won't find any genuine working dairy farmers
standing for election as a councillor, they simply don't have the
spare time.

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


Lets make it even *simpler* for your limited grey matter.

What happens to all those cattle, pigs, sheep, ducks,
geese and hens if they are not for human consumption ?.
Are the public going to be expected to pay huge tax
increases to keep them alive until they peg out naturally,
while at the same time being forced to live on chemical
concoctions masquerading as 'food' ?.
Do you have any idea how many people are employed in the
worlds agricultural and fishing industries and what their
contribution is the GDP ?.
What about the severe developmental issues that will affect
children ?.
Who will keep the countryside looking nice and twee for
the millions of tourists who visit places like Wales,
the lake district, the Dales etc every year ?.
How do you propose to persuade the Chinese, French,
Argentinians and others to give up meat ?.

On 23/04/2021 10:13, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:15:34 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 21/04/2021 18:01, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:01:23 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip crazy stuff, mostly unread

Good of you to snip the crazy stuff, much appreciated.
Unfortunately Dave and John's rational thoughts were snipped too.
Perhaps you could take more care in future.

Oh how I laughed, I thought my trousers would never dry!

I can believe you:
https://academic.oup.com/biomedgeron.../9/M583/584669

Now, 'Richard', any chance of you having a go at answering the actual
question?

I'll re-state it so you won't be 'confused' like the other trolls.

Would a councilor from an opposition party who represented one ward
out of the rest who were under the control of a single party, have any
more power 'as opposition' than those candidates who didn't gain a
seat (or whatever it's called in Local elections)?

Generally yes when coming up to an election. The last thing an incumbent
councillor will want to provide is ammunition for the opposition.

Do representatives from the other parties still turn up to important
meetings?

Why don't you ask the opposition councillor in mind? How will anyone
else know?

Thanks for playing.

Is everything a game for you? That's nice.

On 23/04/2021 13:07, Andrew wrote:
On 22/04/2021 15:04, Fredxx wrote:

Only you can see the faceplant.

He can't. Whatever pathological or mental issue he is incubating,
he will be the *last* one to recognise it.

Hallucinations are more a feature of a B12 deficiency:

https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/d...psych.12060144


Also sub-acute hepatitis, pre-alzheimers, manic depression and plenty
of other pathological diseases or syndromes.

He really is losing his marbles and like most people in that situation
will be the last to realise it.



Yesterday I had southern flavoured coated fish free meals. They were
utterly tasteless and without texture. I can see why fanatical vegans
are so filled with hate and envy where we're allowed to enjoy the real
thing.

If you must eat banana flowers, why on earth attempt to flavour it and
pass it of as 'fish'. Find another name for it.

They were on their sell by date so 10p each. I thought I would see what
I was missing and on eating them felt full of sympathy for T i m and
what his loved ones were subjecting him to.

At least his dog gets to eat meat. But why his dog and not us?

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

That is the first lie... it may be true for a small subset of the
sufficiently wealthy, but it does not hold true for the large swathes of
humanity who depend on animals (dairy in particular) to get adequate
nutrition (and a multitude of other things).

Therefore,

the rest of the argument fails before it's started...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

snip
We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


I don't know how you define "we" but it patently excludes people who
would die without pancreatic enzymes derived from pigs.

I wonder if you have an advance decision ("living will" as was) that
makes clear you don't want to be treated by them or anything else
derived from animals.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

Oh the irony! This is coming from a left brainer who lives in a
basement!

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

We all know 'Pebbles' is a cartoon character. Veganisn actually exists
and has been around for a very long time with many million people
round the world you still have empathy, compassion and benevolence who
put the suffering of others over their own selfish and indoctrinated
desires.

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

https://www.bridgetohealth.co.uk/blo...s-for-dyslexia

As a Transcendental Idealist, Veganism is just a word, which may or may
not more or less accurately represent something in a Real World, which
is in itself somewhat of a supposition, based on inadequate data...

Wow. I didn't think it was possible to put that much compete and utter
BS into a paragraph!

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

We do to maintain a natural balanced diet.

Therefore, some people choose not to do that, not only to align their
morals with their actions

That is a personal choice, but like religion is best not foisted upon
others or abusing others who aren't vegans, fanatic or otherwise.

(few meat eaters could kill livestock
themselves or would eat a cat or dog),

Quite. It's dependent on culture and tradition.

but improve their own health,

It doesn't, that is the issue here. We are adapted to eat meat, and
dependent on this source of natural B12.

You give your dogs meat, so you must recognise the need for a natural
balanced diet.

reduce resource consumption, reduce pollution and environmental damage
but most importantly, not take what was never ours in the first place.

So, replace 'vegan' with 'not hurting and exploiting animals' and try
justifying it with yer bs again.

Then you are no vegan. You admit to not caring about animal welfare
whilst alive, but just don't want us to eat them when dead. You're
simply envious we're allowed to eat meat.

Oh, and spare me the 'I have canine teeth', or 'we need to eat meat to
survive' as they are both BS for the vast majority of the worlds
population in 2021.

Successful developed countries consume the most meat. It's the
difference between surviving and 'living'.

ALL of the science is pointing us towards a 'plant based diet'

No it doesn't. Dieticians regularly write about vegan diets lacking some
vital consumption the body needs. Only a fanatic vegan would make such
an unsubstantiated claim.

and the
logical conclusion to that is undoing of the cognitive dissonance that

There is no cognitive dissonance amongst most meat eaters. There is
amongst vegans who own pets and feed them meat.

Fanatical veganism and pet ownership are an oxymoron.

we have been conditioned into from the time when the alternative
choices were fewer,

Not only conditions, but through evolution we have evolved to require
meat as part of our natural diet and consume milk in adulthood.

the population much much smaller and our
understanding of what we *will* need to do to feed the world
population.

No we don't. World population is self limiting. The greater the
population the greater the damage to the environment. Why would you want
the population to grow?

That doesn't include feeding more livestock than humans,
food grown on land that can grow human consumable food instead and us
trying to get the value of that food (and other 'commodities') from
slaughtering billions of animals every year.

So not longer trillions! Will it be millions next?

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
On 23 Apr 2021 at 10:13:19 BST, T i m wrote:

Would a councilor from an opposition party who represented one ward
out of the rest who were under the control of a single party, have any
more power 'as opposition' than those candidates who didn't gain a
seat (or whatever it's called in Local elections)?

Of course, because he's a councillor and they are not.

Do representatives from the other parties still turn up to important
meetings?

Assuming you mean council meetings, only if they are councillors and are
memebers of the committee that is having a meeting.

Council meetings are held in public.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 23/04/2021 19:34, charles wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
On 23 Apr 2021 at 10:13:19 BST, T i m wrote:

Would a councilor from an opposition party who represented one ward
out of the rest who were under the control of a single party, have any
more power 'as opposition' than those candidates who didn't gain a
seat (or whatever it's called in Local elections)?

Of course, because he's a councillor and they are not.

Do representatives from the other parties still turn up to important
meetings?

Assuming you mean council meetings, only if they are councillors and are
memebers of the committee that is having a meeting.

Council meetings are held in public.

Unless they want to discuss something that they don't want us to hear,
as our parish council did when they were involved in some dodgy
deal to get a new sports pavilion/changing rooms. This came to
nought and we still don't know what they have signed up for.
£25K for an 'independent' report for starters from what I have heard.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:24:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

That is the first lie...

It isn't, it's a statement of scientific fact, and it's the way we are
heading with many things (like car tyres).

it may be true for a small subset of the
sufficiently wealthy,

No, it may be *necessary* for a small subset of the population that
would need to do so to survive.

but it does not hold true for the large swathes of
humanity who depend on animals (dairy in particular) to get adequate
nutrition (and a multitude of other things).

A subset.

Therefore,

the rest of the argument fails before it's started...

Ironically it doesn't.

What you are doing is looking at it from the mind set of a culture
that has normalised the exploitation of animals. This might have been
'acceptable' when science hadn't come up with alternatives but for the
vast majority it's no longer the need now.

And what if we stopped feeding billions of animals food they we could
eat ourselves or stopped wasting many more gallons of water per gallon
of 'milk' to grow alternatives?

But I get it, like many of our age(ish) we were brought up with the
whole animal exploitation thing to be normalised and so I can see how,
if you didn't care about animal suffering (physical and mental),
exploitation and death then 'why would' you want to try to do anything
different now?

Every time I might think of eating an egg I think of the suffering of
the hens and the death of millions of chicks every year who were
macerated, simply because they happen to have been born male.

Every time I might think of drinking milk I think of the cow that will
only live a 1/4 of the time she might naturally (and still can in a
rescue etc) and every time her child is taken away from her and either
forced into the same human-supply slavery or shot in the head (when
just born or a year later).

Ever time I might think of eating bacon I think of the pigs squalling
and screeching desperate to escape the gas that's slowly and painfully
suffocating them ... and before that having their tails cut off and
teeth cut down, simply so they don't damage each other because of the
unnatural numbers they are 'farmed' in.

Every time I think of eating fish I think of them slowly suffocating
on the deck of a ship and either eventually dying of suffocation or
being gutted alive, or swimming wound and round in circles for 3
years, often covered in sea mites and open wounds when they would
naturally be making their way thousands of miles across open oceans
(and back).

And none of the above are machines or some factory output, they are
all sentient beings that feel and sense and have families and social
groups and can fear and do suffer (mentally and physically).

And I'm not anthramorphising any of them, I just respect them for the
individual lives they are, not something we own or can just cause pain
and suffering to for a moments taste.

Do you think we will be still treating animals this way in 100 years
time or that we may have continued evolving to realise none of this is
sustainable or right?

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:05:57 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

snip
We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


I don't know how you define "we" but it patently excludes people who
would die without pancreatic enzymes derived from pigs.

I wonder if you have an advance decision ("living will" as was) that
makes clear you don't want to be treated by them or anything else
derived from animals.

Let's see if this help answer your question:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

So, to answer your last question, depending on how old I was, my
potential life span after treatment and what any animal had to endure
to keep me alive, yes, such a will seems a good idea.

I guess to many they are 'just animals', until you kick their dog that
is ...

We (initially) aren't talking about the use of animals for (human)
life and death instances, we are talking about the wanton consumption
and so causing pain and suffering to billions of animals every year
when there is *no need*.

What many don't seem to realise is just how much we rely on the system
of animals being like it was when we first got here and how us and
them ****ting in our own drinking water (pollution in the rivers and
sea) and polluting the very air we need to breath and atmosphere that
protects us isn't good for us?

Cheers, T i m

On 23 Apr 2021 17:41:53 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 23 Apr 2021 at 10:13:19 BST, T i m wrote:

Would a councilor from an opposition party who represented one ward
out of the rest who were under the control of a single party, have any
more power 'as opposition' than those candidates who didn't gain a
seat (or whatever it's called in Local elections)?

Of course, because he's a councillor and they are not.

Ok.

Do representatives from the other parties still turn up to important
meetings?

Assuming you mean council meetings, only if they are councillors and are
memebers of the committee that is having a meeting.

Ok.

So outside of that, what other routes of 'objection' or 'favour' are
there to joe public?

Why couldn't you (individually or as a group) contact the council
directly, if all the councilors are there for is to act as a middle
man?

I have contacted the local council directly on all sorts of matters
and they have mostly been resolved (action or reason why not) to my
satisfaction?

Cheers, T i m