Snipe - The Scoop

Friday, 8 May 2009

Snow more nonsense for Boris over "Bollocks" jibe

Some top-notch legalese from the GLA Standards Committee investigation into Boris's snow day strop:

"After viewing web-cast footage of the [select committee] meeting, the GLA’s Sub-Committee did find that, at one point, the Mayor did say “nonsense, bollocks, nonsense.” The GLA’s Sub- Committee considered that, in itself, the term “bollocks” is not disrespectful, and noted that none of the members of the Select Committee took offence. 

"In addition to this, the GLA’s Sub-Committee were of the view that the Mayor said this word quietly, under his breath, and then quickly sought to correct himself by repeating the word “nonsense.” For these reasons, along with the fact that the Select Committee was a political arena, the GLA’s Sub-Committee concluded that the Mayor’s use of the term “bollocks” was not a failure to treat others with respect, and did not bring his office or the Authority into disrepute."

I bet the lawyers had some fun with that one.

11 comments:

Don't Call Me Dave said...

Barnet Council’s Standards Sub Committee doesn’t think it in the public interest to take action against its leader for suggesting that residents are wankers, so no surprise over Boris’s comments.

But to be fair to Boris, there is a difference between saying that something is bollocks as opposed to someone being a wanker.

AdamB said...

Boris made a fool of himself, but this complaint was a waste of time. Who cares if Boris said "bollocks"? It's hardly the crime of the century.

You're right though, there's a difference between swearing and abuse.

Anonymous said...

Boris sums up his mayoralty in just three words.

Anonymous said...

"Boris sums up his mayoralty in just three words."

Another impartial and well-argued comment from one of the Tory Troll cheerleaders.

Do you think it's right for Labour MPs to abuse their membership of a parliamentary committee to make cheap party political points...wasting the time of the committee, and our mayor's time in the process...at taxpayers' expense?

I'm looking forward to reading about these guys' expenses. What I've seen so far makes Brian Coleman's dining habits look perfectly spartan.

Talking of which, lookee HEREColeman's claim of vindication is about as lame as some of the huffing and puffing I've read here.

AdamB said...

Wow, I've got cheerleaders. Aren't I lucky?

You (aofE?) do seem to be under the misapprehension that I give a stuff about defending Labour or any other greedy MPs. Expose the lot of them as far as I'm concerned.

On the other hand, comparing MPs with a local councillor isn't really a worthwhile comparison. The opportunities for greed are much less for the likes of Coleman (who to be fair does the best with what he's got) than they are for those across the water in Westminster. Doesn't mean Coleman shouldn't be exposed, any less than our greedy MPS are being exposed.

Thanks for the link to his press release by the way. I've been trying to find that and I'm not on the Christmas card list these days.

Anonymous said...

"You do seem to be under the misapprehension that I give a stuff about defending Labour or any other greedy MPs. Expose the lot of them as far as I'm concerned."

That's good to hear.

"...Doesn't mean Coleman shouldn't be exposed, any less than our greedy MPS are being exposed."

I'm no fan.

"Thanks for the link to his press release by the way. I've been trying to find that and I'm not on the Christmas card list these days."

Try here,

http://www.london.gov.uk/rss/rssassembly.xml

Bon weekend

Tom said...

"Doesn't mean Coleman shouldn't be exposed, any less than our greedy MPS are being exposed."

One very good point here is that if you expose councillors whose attitude to expenses and free meals is that of dear Brian early enough, you reduce the chances that they make it up to the rich pickings at Westminster. Conversely, reducing the pickings at Westminster reduces the chance of dear Brian forsaking the poor bastards in Barnet for bigger troughs.

Don't Call Me Dave said...

Brian Coleman does not have aspirations to be an MP. He believes that councillors have real power whereas most MPs are simply lobby fodder. The truth is that under the Cabinet system of local government, most councillors are lobby fodder too.

Coleman has shown that councillors are just as adept as MPs at troughing. When I revealed on my blog that he was raking in £108,000 a year in allowances, one of his sheep (or was it a Ram?) left a message implying I had libelled him. It transpired that my figures were wrong - but only fractionally. The correct figure was just under £103,000 - as if that would make a difference in the eyes of the public.

Any councillor who seriously thinks he is worth a six figure allowance is surely deranged, but more fool us for paying it.

Anonymous said...

Well as we all know, that particular word is used to refer to a priest and has been successfully argued as such in court:

http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002756.php

He couldn't possibly have been using the more vulgar meaning :)

sarah hart said...

Isn't it more to do with the way Boris erects a smoke screen to avoid exposing his ineptitude?
On the occasions when he knows what he is talking about, cann justify his decisions or practice, he doesn't resort to this sort of response.
When in a corner, he lets fly.

Tom said...

"When in a corner, he lets fly."

Trust me, after Saturday, a lot became clear.