The Argus"Hired killers" tweet councillor thrown out of Green party (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

"Hired killers" tweet councillor thrown out of Green party

The Argus: "Hired killers" tweet councillor thrown out of own party "Hired killers" tweet councillor thrown out of own party

An outspoken councillor who sparked outrage by describing serving Army soldiers as “hired killers” in a tweet has been thrown out of his own party.

Brighton and Hove City councillor Ben Duncan has been told by the Brighton and Hove Green Party that he should no longer serve as one of their members following disciplinary proceedings.

The decision means Councillor Duncan will be left to serve as an independent for the rest of this council’s term which ends next May.

In a statement issued this morning, Lisa Murray, chairwoman of Brighton and Hove Green Party, said: “The panel of inquiry has concluded that Councillor Ben Duncan should no longer serve as a member of the Green Group of Councillors on Brighton and Hove City Council.

“This follows his recent statement on Twitter concerning the armed forces which understandably offended many both within and outside the party.

“The panel concluded that since this recent incident follows a history of making comments in social media that many would view as inappropriate for someone in such a position, taken as a whole, Councillor Duncan's actions amount to a breach of standards and judgement expected of a Green councillor, bringing himself and colleagues into disrepute.

"Councillor Duncan’s removal from the Green Group is for the remaining council term.

"From this point Councillor Duncan will not participate in votes or discussions in the Green Group or be involved in any decisions of the Group and will sit as an independent councillor and not be counted as a part of the Group.

"Any further investigation is beyond the remit of this disciplinary panel.

“We thank Councillor Duncan for the contribution he has made while a member of the Group.”

Comments (69)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:29pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

I cannot see how this was a breach of standards - everyone knows that The Greens HATE our Armed Forces and anything to do with English patriotism.

He has been thrown out for letting the cat oiut of the bag.

I fully expect Caroline Lucas to be expelled now for her support of the UAF thugs on April 27th......oh, wait.......no, that isn't going to happen.
I cannot see how this was a breach of standards - everyone knows that The Greens HATE our Armed Forces and anything to do with English patriotism. He has been thrown out for letting the cat oiut of the bag. I fully expect Caroline Lucas to be expelled now for her support of the UAF thugs on April 27th......oh, wait.......no, that isn't going to happen. stevo!!
  • Score: -38

12:36pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Take it Personally says...

and he looks like a right gormless idiot
and he looks like a right gormless idiot Take it Personally
  • Score: 67

12:38pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

I wonder if he'll do the honourable thing and resign as a councillor ? Thought not !!!!
I wonder if he'll do the honourable thing and resign as a councillor ? Thought not !!!! Fight_Back
  • Score: 94

12:55pm Wed 9 Jul 14

notaconspiracy says...

I always thought our soldiers fought fought for the right to 'free speech'. Shame on the green party. I wonder if the UAF brigade will send some masked protesters to Green party HQ?
I always thought our soldiers fought fought for the right to 'free speech'. Shame on the green party. I wonder if the UAF brigade will send some masked protesters to Green party HQ? notaconspiracy
  • Score: -29

12:57pm Wed 9 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

I think that the Green Party has done everything that it could have done, given the circumstances. What else could it have done? Anyone? Anyone?
I think that the Green Party has done everything that it could have done, given the circumstances. What else could it have done? Anyone? Anyone? theargusissoinformative
  • Score: -60

12:59pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Caute3 says...

notaconspiracy wrote:
I always thought our soldiers fought fought for the right to 'free speech'. Shame on the green party. I wonder if the UAF brigade will send some masked protesters to Green party HQ?
What 'right to free speech' would that be then? Would that be the same right that the Police take to keeping covert dossiers on members of the public, to allowing pedophile MPs to get away with it by the home office conveniently losing files? And what free speech do those who soldiers kill have and where would that be? Heaven?
[quote][p][bold]notaconspiracy[/bold] wrote: I always thought our soldiers fought fought for the right to 'free speech'. Shame on the green party. I wonder if the UAF brigade will send some masked protesters to Green party HQ?[/p][/quote]What 'right to free speech' would that be then? Would that be the same right that the Police take to keeping covert dossiers on members of the public, to allowing pedophile MPs to get away with it by the home office conveniently losing files? And what free speech do those who soldiers kill have and where would that be? Heaven? Caute3
  • Score: -77

1:05pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

theargusissoinformat
ive
wrote:
I think that the Green Party has done everything that it could have done, given the circumstances. What else could it have done? Anyone? Anyone?
The Green Party could have applauded him for saying what they all privately think.
[quote][p][bold]theargusissoinformat ive[/bold] wrote: I think that the Green Party has done everything that it could have done, given the circumstances. What else could it have done? Anyone? Anyone?[/p][/quote]The Green Party could have applauded him for saying what they all privately think. stevo!!
  • Score: -126

1:10pm Wed 9 Jul 14

wexler53 says...

I don't imagine this twerp has any principles, as he's shown himself to be rather silly from the start.

He should really resign, but that would mean giving up on the allowances etc...

I imagine that for people like him, the gravy train trumps all.

With months to go, and counting, chucking him out is only gesture politics as I dare say he'll vote along with the rest anyway.
I don't imagine this twerp has any principles, as he's shown himself to be rather silly from the start. He should really resign, but that would mean giving up on the allowances etc... I imagine that for people like him, the gravy train trumps all. With months to go, and counting, chucking him out is only gesture politics as I dare say he'll vote along with the rest anyway. wexler53
  • Score: 49

1:11pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Bob_The_Ferret says...

notaconspiracy wrote:
I always thought our soldiers fought fought for the right to 'free speech'. Shame on the green party. I wonder if the UAF brigade will send some masked protesters to Green party HQ?
'Free speech' does not absolve you from the responsibility of the consequences of uttering your freely spoken words.
[quote][p][bold]notaconspiracy[/bold] wrote: I always thought our soldiers fought fought for the right to 'free speech'. Shame on the green party. I wonder if the UAF brigade will send some masked protesters to Green party HQ?[/p][/quote]'Free speech' does not absolve you from the responsibility of the consequences of uttering your freely spoken words. Bob_The_Ferret
  • Score: 55

1:14pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Man of steel says...

Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.
Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile. Man of steel
  • Score: 41

1:23pm Wed 9 Jul 14

ThinkBrighton says...

Fight_Back wrote:
I wonder if he'll do the honourable thing and resign as a councillor ? Thought not !!!!
Of course he won't resign he would lose the £12715.00 per annum he claims in expenses, thats £245.00 per week for being a useless fool.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I wonder if he'll do the honourable thing and resign as a councillor ? Thought not !!!![/p][/quote]Of course he won't resign he would lose the £12715.00 per annum he claims in expenses, thats £245.00 per week for being a useless fool. ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 71

1:25pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Man of steel wrote:
Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.
....says Mr Steel.
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.[/p][/quote]....says Mr Steel. stevo!!
  • Score: -15

1:28pm Wed 9 Jul 14

ThinkBrighton says...

ThinkBrighton wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I wonder if he'll do the honourable thing and resign as a councillor ? Thought not !!!!
Of course he won't resign he would lose the £12715.00 per annum he claims in expenses, thats £245.00 per week for being a useless fool.
Which is not nearly as much as the fool (kitkat) who is the leader of the green group, at £41755.00 or £803.00 per week.
What an utter waste of the Brighton and Hove tax payers money
[quote][p][bold]ThinkBrighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I wonder if he'll do the honourable thing and resign as a councillor ? Thought not !!!![/p][/quote]Of course he won't resign he would lose the £12715.00 per annum he claims in expenses, thats £245.00 per week for being a useless fool.[/p][/quote]Which is not nearly as much as the fool (kitkat) who is the leader of the green group, at £41755.00 or £803.00 per week. What an utter waste of the Brighton and Hove tax payers money ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 59

1:29pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Man of steel says...

stevo!! wrote:
Man of steel wrote:
Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.
....says Mr Steel.
Ok Stevo, agreed, but I am not spouting bile.
P.S. My name is Robin Day, now let us have your real full name.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.[/p][/quote]....says Mr Steel.[/p][/quote]Ok Stevo, agreed, but I am not spouting bile. P.S. My name is Robin Day, now let us have your real full name. Man of steel
  • Score: 29

1:35pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Man of steel wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
Man of steel wrote:
Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.
....says Mr Steel.
Ok Stevo, agreed, but I am not spouting bile.
P.S. My name is Robin Day, now let us have your real full name.
People ARE allowed to post their thoughts on the matter, just as Duncan should have been free to post his on our troops.

You may disagree with anyone, but complaining about their use of a nickname suggests that you aren't able to respond to the posts they make.

I agree with your stance on this, but opposing views should be respected and challenged.
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.[/p][/quote]....says Mr Steel.[/p][/quote]Ok Stevo, agreed, but I am not spouting bile. P.S. My name is Robin Day, now let us have your real full name.[/p][/quote]People ARE allowed to post their thoughts on the matter, just as Duncan should have been free to post his on our troops. You may disagree with anyone, but complaining about their use of a nickname suggests that you aren't able to respond to the posts they make. I agree with your stance on this, but opposing views should be respected and challenged. stevo!!
  • Score: -124

1:40pm Wed 9 Jul 14

DavidDrive says...

Caute3 wrote:
notaconspiracy wrote:
I always thought our soldiers fought fought for the right to 'free speech'. Shame on the green party. I wonder if the UAF brigade will send some masked protesters to Green party HQ?
What 'right to free speech' would that be then? Would that be the same right that the Police take to keeping covert dossiers on members of the public, to allowing pedophile MPs to get away with it by the home office conveniently losing files? And what free speech do those who soldiers kill have and where would that be? Heaven?
I think you'll find most countries have soldiers. And they all get paid. It just happens that ours fight and die for Britain. Doing what our (democratically elected) Government tells them to do.

Keeping Caute3 safe so he/she can blog, as above. Free speech?
[quote][p][bold]Caute3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notaconspiracy[/bold] wrote: I always thought our soldiers fought fought for the right to 'free speech'. Shame on the green party. I wonder if the UAF brigade will send some masked protesters to Green party HQ?[/p][/quote]What 'right to free speech' would that be then? Would that be the same right that the Police take to keeping covert dossiers on members of the public, to allowing pedophile MPs to get away with it by the home office conveniently losing files? And what free speech do those who soldiers kill have and where would that be? Heaven?[/p][/quote]I think you'll find most countries have soldiers. And they all get paid. It just happens that ours fight and die for Britain. Doing what our (democratically elected) Government tells them to do. Keeping Caute3 safe so he/she can blog, as above. Free speech? DavidDrive
  • Score: 34

1:54pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Warren Morgan says...

I am still calling on him to resign as a city councillor. He cannot continue to draw an allowance as an elected representative for the remaining 300 days of this council.
I am still calling on him to resign as a city councillor. He cannot continue to draw an allowance as an elected representative for the remaining 300 days of this council. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 60

1:58pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Goldenwight says...

Caute3 wrote:
notaconspiracy wrote: I always thought our soldiers fought fought for the right to 'free speech'. Shame on the green party. I wonder if the UAF brigade will send some masked protesters to Green party HQ?
What 'right to free speech' would that be then? Would that be the same right that the Police take to keeping covert dossiers on members of the public, to allowing pedophile MPs to get away with it by the home office conveniently losing files? And what free speech do those who soldiers kill have and where would that be? Heaven?
What on earth has that comment got to do with the story?

If you simply wish to spout bile about your own personal hobbyhorse, may I suggest that you write a letter to the editor about it. Good luck getting it published.
[quote][p][bold]Caute3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notaconspiracy[/bold] wrote: I always thought our soldiers fought fought for the right to 'free speech'. Shame on the green party. I wonder if the UAF brigade will send some masked protesters to Green party HQ?[/p][/quote]What 'right to free speech' would that be then? Would that be the same right that the Police take to keeping covert dossiers on members of the public, to allowing pedophile MPs to get away with it by the home office conveniently losing files? And what free speech do those who soldiers kill have and where would that be? Heaven?[/p][/quote]What on earth has that comment got to do with the story? If you simply wish to spout bile about your own personal hobbyhorse, may I suggest that you write a letter to the editor about it. Good luck getting it published. Goldenwight
  • Score: 22

1:58pm Wed 9 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
I am still calling on him to resign as a city councillor. He cannot continue to draw an allowance as an elected representative for the remaining 300 days of this council.
He probably can and he probably will (unless you know better). What's your secret weapon?
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: I am still calling on him to resign as a city councillor. He cannot continue to draw an allowance as an elected representative for the remaining 300 days of this council.[/p][/quote]He probably can and he probably will (unless you know better). What's your secret weapon? theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 14

2:01pm Wed 9 Jul 14

kkj says...

Has he been thrown out of the party? Or just thrown out of the serving group of councillors? There's a difference.
Has he been thrown out of the party? Or just thrown out of the serving group of councillors? There's a difference. kkj
  • Score: 23

2:09pm Wed 9 Jul 14

TonyTony says...

Man of steel wrote:
Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.
Without a trace of irony
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.[/p][/quote]Without a trace of irony TonyTony
  • Score: -6

2:33pm Wed 9 Jul 14

PETE OF QUEENS PARK says...

Caute3 wrote:
This sounds a bit like meat eaters not wanting to accept that what they are eating actually comes from live animals: cows, sheep and the like. The armed forces are hired killers - they are trained to kill - get over yourselves people - that's what they do - and they don't just kill trained killers, they also kill thousands of civilians or have you not read the news on Afghanistan or Iraq? He shouldn't have fired, he should have been applauded for calling a spade a spade. If you don't like the idea of army personnel being hired killers, then become pacifists but don't squirm about it.
You sound! like the rest of the Greens talk out your arises because you think that's where your brains are.
[quote][p][bold]Caute3[/bold] wrote: This sounds a bit like meat eaters not wanting to accept that what they are eating actually comes from live animals: cows, sheep and the like. The armed forces are hired killers - they are trained to kill - get over yourselves people - that's what they do - and they don't just kill trained killers, they also kill thousands of civilians or have you not read the news on Afghanistan or Iraq? He shouldn't have fired, he should have been applauded for calling a spade a spade. If you don't like the idea of army personnel being hired killers, then become pacifists but don't squirm about it.[/p][/quote]You sound! like the rest of the Greens talk out your arises because you think that's where your brains are. PETE OF QUEENS PARK
  • Score: 29

2:33pm Wed 9 Jul 14

PETE OF QUEENS PARK says...

Caute3 wrote:
This sounds a bit like meat eaters not wanting to accept that what they are eating actually comes from live animals: cows, sheep and the like. The armed forces are hired killers - they are trained to kill - get over yourselves people - that's what they do - and they don't just kill trained killers, they also kill thousands of civilians or have you not read the news on Afghanistan or Iraq? He shouldn't have fired, he should have been applauded for calling a spade a spade. If you don't like the idea of army personnel being hired killers, then become pacifists but don't squirm about it.
You sound! like the rest of the Greens talk out your arises because you think that's where your brains are.
[quote][p][bold]Caute3[/bold] wrote: This sounds a bit like meat eaters not wanting to accept that what they are eating actually comes from live animals: cows, sheep and the like. The armed forces are hired killers - they are trained to kill - get over yourselves people - that's what they do - and they don't just kill trained killers, they also kill thousands of civilians or have you not read the news on Afghanistan or Iraq? He shouldn't have fired, he should have been applauded for calling a spade a spade. If you don't like the idea of army personnel being hired killers, then become pacifists but don't squirm about it.[/p][/quote]You sound! like the rest of the Greens talk out your arises because you think that's where your brains are. PETE OF QUEENS PARK
  • Score: 13

2:44pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Man of steel says...

TonyTony wrote:
Man of steel wrote:
Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.
Without a trace of irony
You really should read all of the posts before writing one of your own.
Go back through them and read my second posting.
[quote][p][bold]TonyTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.[/p][/quote]Without a trace of irony[/p][/quote]You really should read all of the posts before writing one of your own. Go back through them and read my second posting. Man of steel
  • Score: -2

3:04pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Martha Gunn says...

He has NOT been thrown out of his own party.

He has had the Green whip withdrawn - except on Caroline's Council the Green Party doesn't have a whip to withdraw. They all just amble along together as best they can except when they can't and then they don't.

And then they forget to collect the rubbish.

Confused?

Don't worry it's all just part of the rich tapestry of chaos and confusion brought to you by the La Lucas circus and her clowns.
He has NOT been thrown out of his own party. He has had the Green whip withdrawn - except on Caroline's Council the Green Party doesn't have a whip to withdraw. They all just amble along together as best they can except when they can't and then they don't. And then they forget to collect the rubbish. Confused? Don't worry it's all just part of the rich tapestry of chaos and confusion brought to you by the La Lucas circus and her clowns. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 39

3:05pm Wed 9 Jul 14

asterixobelix says...

Caute3 wrote:
This sounds a bit like meat eaters not wanting to accept that what they are eating actually comes from live animals: cows, sheep and the like. The armed forces are hired killers - they are trained to kill - get over yourselves people - that's what they do - and they don't just kill trained killers, they also kill thousands of civilians or have you not read the news on Afghanistan or Iraq? He shouldn't have fired, he should have been applauded for calling a spade a spade. If you don't like the idea of army personnel being hired killers, then become pacifists but don't squirm about it.
See how lucky you are to be able to say that. Soldiers fought and died through the world so that you could. Show a little respect.
And as for Ben Duncan...He was voted for as a green councillor. As he's no longer green surely there should an election in his ward. Let the electorate speak.
[quote][p][bold]Caute3[/bold] wrote: This sounds a bit like meat eaters not wanting to accept that what they are eating actually comes from live animals: cows, sheep and the like. The armed forces are hired killers - they are trained to kill - get over yourselves people - that's what they do - and they don't just kill trained killers, they also kill thousands of civilians or have you not read the news on Afghanistan or Iraq? He shouldn't have fired, he should have been applauded for calling a spade a spade. If you don't like the idea of army personnel being hired killers, then become pacifists but don't squirm about it.[/p][/quote]See how lucky you are to be able to say that. Soldiers fought and died through the world so that you could. Show a little respect. And as for Ben Duncan...He was voted for as a green councillor. As he's no longer green surely there should an election in his ward. Let the electorate speak. asterixobelix
  • Score: 38

3:07pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Warren Morgan says...

He is still a Green Party member.
He will still vote with the Green Group (on the occasions they do vote together)
He is still paid as a councillor elected on a Green ticket.
He is still a Press Officer for a Green MEP in London.
He is still a Green Party member. He will still vote with the Green Group (on the occasions they do vote together) He is still paid as a councillor elected on a Green ticket. He is still a Press Officer for a Green MEP in London. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 23

3:29pm Wed 9 Jul 14

rolivan says...

So what does Lisa Murray mean in her statement then Warren Morgan how can he vote with the Green Group?
So what does Lisa Murray mean in her statement then Warren Morgan how can he vote with the Green Group? rolivan
  • Score: 1

3:34pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

rolivan wrote:
So what does Lisa Murray mean in her statement then Warren Morgan how can he vote with the Green Group?
No-one can stop him voting for what the Greens are voting.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: So what does Lisa Murray mean in her statement then Warren Morgan how can he vote with the Green Group?[/p][/quote]No-one can stop him voting for what the Greens are voting. stevo!!
  • Score: 4

3:42pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Serving Officer says...

Wonderful news! Scum-bags like this have no place holding office of any kind in our society. I know for a fact that the British solder is the hardest flighting but most compassionate solder in the world - they are not politicians; they are trying to do their best with what they have. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very wrong, yes, but it takes a special type of ignorance to blame the men on the ground for them. If blame is wanted - string Tony Blair and his cabal up in a tree.
Wonderful news! Scum-bags like this have no place holding office of any kind in our society. I know for a fact that the British solder is the hardest flighting but most compassionate solder in the world - they are not politicians; they are trying to do their best with what they have. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very wrong, yes, but it takes a special type of ignorance to blame the men on the ground for them. If blame is wanted - string Tony Blair and his cabal up in a tree. Serving Officer
  • Score: 43

3:56pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Serving Officer wrote:
Wonderful news! Scum-bags like this have no place holding office of any kind in our society. I know for a fact that the British solder is the hardest flighting but most compassionate solder in the world - they are not politicians; they are trying to do their best with what they have. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very wrong, yes, but it takes a special type of ignorance to blame the men on the ground for them. If blame is wanted - string Tony Blair and his cabal up in a tree.
Fine, but all he did was call them names.

Sticks and stones, etc......
[quote][p][bold]Serving Officer[/bold] wrote: Wonderful news! Scum-bags like this have no place holding office of any kind in our society. I know for a fact that the British solder is the hardest flighting but most compassionate solder in the world - they are not politicians; they are trying to do their best with what they have. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very wrong, yes, but it takes a special type of ignorance to blame the men on the ground for them. If blame is wanted - string Tony Blair and his cabal up in a tree.[/p][/quote]Fine, but all he did was call them names. Sticks and stones, etc...... stevo!!
  • Score: -29

3:58pm Wed 9 Jul 14

clarkebrighton says...

He is a Spineless Piece of Scum and if he had any decency would stand
down Completely, After what he said he is NOT a fit or Proper person
to be a Councillor, and Should NOT remain on the Payroll.

He still has to answer to the Council after Many Complaints on the
On line Complain about your Councillor form at B & H Council site.

Apart from the on line petition below has now reached over 1,600 in the last week.
Goggle change.org Then Browse Ben Duncan and Sign
He is a Spineless Piece of Scum and if he had any decency would stand down Completely, After what he said he is NOT a fit or Proper person to be a Councillor, and Should NOT remain on the Payroll. He still has to answer to the Council after Many Complaints on the On line Complain about your Councillor form at B & H Council site. Apart from the on line petition below has now reached over 1,600 in the last week. Goggle change.org Then Browse Ben Duncan and Sign clarkebrighton
  • Score: 19

4:08pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

" After what he said he is NOT a fit or Proper person
to be a Councillor, and Should NOT remain on the Payroll."

No crime was committed.

You disagree with his stance on our troops. Fine, but that doesn't preclude him from holding elected office.
" After what he said he is NOT a fit or Proper person to be a Councillor, and Should NOT remain on the Payroll." No crime was committed. You disagree with his stance on our troops. Fine, but that doesn't preclude him from holding elected office. stevo!!
  • Score: -20

4:56pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

Cllr Barnett gets hauled before the council for allegedly bringing it into disrepute because of her stance on Golliwogs. Yet, Cllr Duncan doesn't - how does that work then ? He should suffer the same process as Cllr Barnett. Somewhat shows what a corrupt local council system we must have.
Cllr Barnett gets hauled before the council for allegedly bringing it into disrepute because of her stance on Golliwogs. Yet, Cllr Duncan doesn't - how does that work then ? He should suffer the same process as Cllr Barnett. Somewhat shows what a corrupt local council system we must have. Fight_Back
  • Score: 23

5:12pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Cllr Barnett gets hauled before the council for allegedly bringing it into disrepute because of her stance on Golliwogs. Yet, Cllr Duncan doesn't - how does that work then ? He should suffer the same process as Cllr Barnett. Somewhat shows what a corrupt local council system we must have.
Can you explain how the two stances equate to each other?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Cllr Barnett gets hauled before the council for allegedly bringing it into disrepute because of her stance on Golliwogs. Yet, Cllr Duncan doesn't - how does that work then ? He should suffer the same process as Cllr Barnett. Somewhat shows what a corrupt local council system we must have.[/p][/quote]Can you explain how the two stances equate to each other? stevo!!
  • Score: -16

5:19pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

stevo!! wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Cllr Barnett gets hauled before the council for allegedly bringing it into disrepute because of her stance on Golliwogs. Yet, Cllr Duncan doesn't - how does that work then ? He should suffer the same process as Cllr Barnett. Somewhat shows what a corrupt local council system we must have.
Can you explain how the two stances equate to each other?
Both, allegedly, brought the council into disrepute. Why does Duncan only get punished by his party while Barnett was punished by the council. One rule for one, another rules for others.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Cllr Barnett gets hauled before the council for allegedly bringing it into disrepute because of her stance on Golliwogs. Yet, Cllr Duncan doesn't - how does that work then ? He should suffer the same process as Cllr Barnett. Somewhat shows what a corrupt local council system we must have.[/p][/quote]Can you explain how the two stances equate to each other?[/p][/quote]Both, allegedly, brought the council into disrepute. Why does Duncan only get punished by his party while Barnett was punished by the council. One rule for one, another rules for others. Fight_Back
  • Score: 21

5:27pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Fight_Back wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Cllr Barnett gets hauled before the council for allegedly bringing it into disrepute because of her stance on Golliwogs. Yet, Cllr Duncan doesn't - how does that work then ? He should suffer the same process as Cllr Barnett. Somewhat shows what a corrupt local council system we must have.
Can you explain how the two stances equate to each other?
Both, allegedly, brought the council into disrepute. Why does Duncan only get punished by his party while Barnett was punished by the council. One rule for one, another rules for others.
Her alleged offence was to claim that golliwogs aren't racist. She was found not to have committed an offence.

I have no idea which pathetic misery complained about her, but the complaint related to the entire council in the opinion of the complainant.

In Duncan's case, the Greens are complaining that he has brought them (and only them) into disrepute.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Cllr Barnett gets hauled before the council for allegedly bringing it into disrepute because of her stance on Golliwogs. Yet, Cllr Duncan doesn't - how does that work then ? He should suffer the same process as Cllr Barnett. Somewhat shows what a corrupt local council system we must have.[/p][/quote]Can you explain how the two stances equate to each other?[/p][/quote]Both, allegedly, brought the council into disrepute. Why does Duncan only get punished by his party while Barnett was punished by the council. One rule for one, another rules for others.[/p][/quote]Her alleged offence was to claim that golliwogs aren't racist. She was found not to have committed an offence. I have no idea which pathetic misery complained about her, but the complaint related to the entire council in the opinion of the complainant. In Duncan's case, the Greens are complaining that he has brought them (and only them) into disrepute. stevo!!
  • Score: -106

5:45pm Wed 9 Jul 14

NathanAdler says...

How many times can i type ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha until the website thinks it is a virus?

This beaky piece of four-eyed balding fecal waste deserves no thanks whatsoever.

Hateful, nasty little man. I am sure his son is really proud now!!
How many times can i type ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha until the website thinks it is a virus? This beaky piece of four-eyed balding fecal waste deserves no thanks whatsoever. Hateful, nasty little man. I am sure his son is really proud now!! NathanAdler
  • Score: 16

5:50pm Wed 9 Jul 14

NickBrt says...

Good good good. Shame he is still a councillor though. Perhaps his constituents can oust him by some means before next year.
Good good good. Shame he is still a councillor though. Perhaps his constituents can oust him by some means before next year. NickBrt
  • Score: 13

6:02pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

stevo!! wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Cllr Barnett gets hauled before the council for allegedly bringing it into disrepute because of her stance on Golliwogs. Yet, Cllr Duncan doesn't - how does that work then ? He should suffer the same process as Cllr Barnett. Somewhat shows what a corrupt local council system we must have.
Can you explain how the two stances equate to each other?
Both, allegedly, brought the council into disrepute. Why does Duncan only get punished by his party while Barnett was punished by the council. One rule for one, another rules for others.
Her alleged offence was to claim that golliwogs aren't racist. She was found not to have committed an offence.

I have no idea which pathetic misery complained about her, but the complaint related to the entire council in the opinion of the complainant.

In Duncan's case, the Greens are complaining that he has brought them (and only them) into disrepute.
I, as well as many others including serving councillors, have complained that Duncan has brought the council into disrepute yet he only gets a hearing by his party ? Hmmmmm.

As for who complained about Cllr Barnett, I know two of them and they are council employees. It was a political complaint.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Cllr Barnett gets hauled before the council for allegedly bringing it into disrepute because of her stance on Golliwogs. Yet, Cllr Duncan doesn't - how does that work then ? He should suffer the same process as Cllr Barnett. Somewhat shows what a corrupt local council system we must have.[/p][/quote]Can you explain how the two stances equate to each other?[/p][/quote]Both, allegedly, brought the council into disrepute. Why does Duncan only get punished by his party while Barnett was punished by the council. One rule for one, another rules for others.[/p][/quote]Her alleged offence was to claim that golliwogs aren't racist. She was found not to have committed an offence. I have no idea which pathetic misery complained about her, but the complaint related to the entire council in the opinion of the complainant. In Duncan's case, the Greens are complaining that he has brought them (and only them) into disrepute.[/p][/quote]I, as well as many others including serving councillors, have complained that Duncan has brought the council into disrepute yet he only gets a hearing by his party ? Hmmmmm. As for who complained about Cllr Barnett, I know two of them and they are council employees. It was a political complaint. Fight_Back
  • Score: 10

6:23pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Martha Gunn says...

To reiterate and make it absolutely clear.

What has happened is that he has ceased to be subject to the discipline of the Green Party on the Council.

Except that, as we all know to our cost, the Green Party have no discipline
That's why we have ended up in the mess we are now in.

So the whole episode is just yet more Greenspeak bilge brought to you by Caroline's Council and her Circus Clowns.
To reiterate and make it absolutely clear. What has happened is that he has ceased to be subject to the discipline of the Green Party on the Council. Except that, as we all know to our cost, the Green Party have no discipline That's why we have ended up in the mess we are now in. So the whole episode is just yet more Greenspeak bilge brought to you by Caroline's Council and her Circus Clowns. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 13

6:36pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Saltdean Resident says...

Good riddance, stupid thing to say.
Good riddance, stupid thing to say. Saltdean Resident
  • Score: 4

6:42pm Wed 9 Jul 14

MarkinUckfield says...

theargusissoinformat
ive
wrote:
I think that the Green Party has done everything that it could have done, given the circumstances. What else could it have done? Anyone? Anyone?
Yes he should have been sacked or forced to resign
[quote][p][bold]theargusissoinformat ive[/bold] wrote: I think that the Green Party has done everything that it could have done, given the circumstances. What else could it have done? Anyone? Anyone?[/p][/quote]Yes he should have been sacked or forced to resign MarkinUckfield
  • Score: 9

6:51pm Wed 9 Jul 14

GoldenTorch says...

NathanAdler wrote:
How many times can i type ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha until the website thinks it is a virus?

This beaky piece of four-eyed balding fecal waste deserves no thanks whatsoever.

Hateful, nasty little man. I am sure his son is really proud now!!
Hateful? You do realise the irony of your comment and your other 'hateful' comments posted on this board don't you? Seems your so-called years in the army have left you with some mental challenges to deal with Captain

I was a Lieutenant Colonel in the army you know, but that was when I was playing 'soldiers' at infant school.
[quote][p][bold]NathanAdler[/bold] wrote: How many times can i type ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha until the website thinks it is a virus? This beaky piece of four-eyed balding fecal waste deserves no thanks whatsoever. Hateful, nasty little man. I am sure his son is really proud now!![/p][/quote]Hateful? You do realise the irony of your comment and your other 'hateful' comments posted on this board don't you? Seems your so-called years in the army have left you with some mental challenges to deal with Captain I was a Lieutenant Colonel in the army you know, but that was when I was playing 'soldiers' at infant school. GoldenTorch
  • Score: -9

6:52pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Simplicity Compass says...

I'm ashamed by the Brighton & Hove Green party over their position on their now former councilor's comments.

The UK armed forces are brainless YES men to their political masters - "Hired Killers" is putting it nicely. They have been responsible for many civilian deaths, and have increased the risk of terrorism on the UK mainland. Even the former MI5 boss said the Iraq invasion"undoubtedly increased" the level of terrorist threat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-politics-10
693001

Take a look at the est. numbers of innocent civilians killed by the UK Army in Iraq:

Estimated between 192-321 - the UK refuse to make any figures they have public.

https://www.iraqbody
count.org/analysis/n
umbers/killed-by-uk-
forces/

Add to this the Afghanistan campaign and the Drone strikes carried out on UK territory.

I find nothing to celebrate on Armed Forces Day, it is a worrying new aspect of the militarisation of our society. Remembrance Day honours those who (rightly or wrongly) have served our country, and was setup not to glorify war, but hoped to stop it. Now we have Armed Forces Day, Help for "Heroes", and military at sporting events like Wimbledon.

"Our" armed forces haven't served in a justifiable, ethical, war of last resort in over a decade, the increase of events like Armed Forces Day shows a crisis in the support of the miltary's recent actions.

The only servicemen and women I honour are those who consciously objected to the illegal Iraq war. Not the thugs who enjoy murder for no objective benefit to the UK or any other country. Just look at Iraq today.
I'm ashamed by the Brighton & Hove Green party over their position on their now former councilor's comments. The UK armed forces are brainless YES men to their political masters - "Hired Killers" is putting it nicely. They have been responsible for many civilian deaths, and have increased the risk of terrorism on the UK mainland. Even the former MI5 boss said the Iraq invasion"undoubtedly increased" the level of terrorist threat. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-politics-10 693001 Take a look at the est. numbers of innocent civilians killed by the UK Army in Iraq: Estimated between 192-321 - the UK refuse to make any figures they have public. https://www.iraqbody count.org/analysis/n umbers/killed-by-uk- forces/ Add to this the Afghanistan campaign and the Drone strikes carried out on UK territory. I find nothing to celebrate on Armed Forces Day, it is a worrying new aspect of the militarisation of our society. Remembrance Day honours those who (rightly or wrongly) have served our country, and was setup not to glorify war, but hoped to stop it. Now we have Armed Forces Day, Help for "Heroes", and military at sporting events like Wimbledon. "Our" armed forces haven't served in a justifiable, ethical, war of last resort in over a decade, the increase of events like Armed Forces Day shows a crisis in the support of the miltary's recent actions. The only servicemen and women I honour are those who consciously objected to the illegal Iraq war. Not the thugs who enjoy murder for no objective benefit to the UK or any other country. Just look at Iraq today. Simplicity Compass
  • Score: -27

6:58pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Max Ripple says...

Man of steel wrote:
Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.
Oh, like you're not hiding behind a pseudonym, Mr Man of Steel....

On a separate note, he probably won't resign and that is what the Greens expect. In fact that would be what they positively want because as long as he is a councillor he can still vote alongside the Greens in any debate of which he is part. The fact that he will no longer be involved in internal Green policies, discussions and debates means nothing. His vote will still be with them.

Would be nice if he did do the honourable thing and resign though, wouldn't it?.......
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.[/p][/quote]Oh, like you're not hiding behind a pseudonym, Mr Man of Steel.... On a separate note, he probably won't resign and that is what the Greens expect. In fact that would be what they positively want because as long as he is a councillor he can still vote alongside the Greens in any debate of which he is part. The fact that he will no longer be involved in internal Green policies, discussions and debates means nothing. His vote will still be with them. Would be nice if he did do the honourable thing and resign though, wouldn't it?....... Max Ripple
  • Score: 1

7:01pm Wed 9 Jul 14

NathanAdler says...

GoldenTorch wrote:
NathanAdler wrote:
How many times can i type ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha until the website thinks it is a virus?

This beaky piece of four-eyed balding fecal waste deserves no thanks whatsoever.

Hateful, nasty little man. I am sure his son is really proud now!!
Hateful? You do realise the irony of your comment and your other 'hateful' comments posted on this board don't you? Seems your so-called years in the army have left you with some mental challenges to deal with Captain

I was a Lieutenant Colonel in the army you know, but that was when I was playing 'soldiers' at infant school.
You sound like a tool.

Go and join the Green Party - I hear there may be a councilor position available soon.
[quote][p][bold]GoldenTorch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NathanAdler[/bold] wrote: How many times can i type ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha until the website thinks it is a virus? This beaky piece of four-eyed balding fecal waste deserves no thanks whatsoever. Hateful, nasty little man. I am sure his son is really proud now!![/p][/quote]Hateful? You do realise the irony of your comment and your other 'hateful' comments posted on this board don't you? Seems your so-called years in the army have left you with some mental challenges to deal with Captain I was a Lieutenant Colonel in the army you know, but that was when I was playing 'soldiers' at infant school.[/p][/quote]You sound like a tool. Go and join the Green Party - I hear there may be a councilor position available soon. NathanAdler
  • Score: 9

7:31pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
To reiterate and make it absolutely clear.

What has happened is that he has ceased to be subject to the discipline of the Green Party on the Council.

Except that, as we all know to our cost, the Green Party have no discipline
That's why we have ended up in the mess we are now in.

So the whole episode is just yet more Greenspeak bilge brought to you by Caroline's Council and her Circus Clowns.
****, just when I thought the Greens had actually done something right after 3 years and 2 months !

Oh well shouldn't rally be surprised I suppose with whatever our green slime get up to.
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: To reiterate and make it absolutely clear. What has happened is that he has ceased to be subject to the discipline of the Green Party on the Council. Except that, as we all know to our cost, the Green Party have no discipline That's why we have ended up in the mess we are now in. So the whole episode is just yet more Greenspeak bilge brought to you by Caroline's Council and her Circus Clowns.[/p][/quote]****, just when I thought the Greens had actually done something right after 3 years and 2 months ! Oh well shouldn't rally be surprised I suppose with whatever our green slime get up to. Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 7

7:48pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

"The only servicemen and women I honour are those who consciously objected to the illegal Iraq war. Not the thugs who enjoy murder for no objective benefit to the UK or any other country."

And how do you differentiate between them?

What form does that honouring take?
"The only servicemen and women I honour are those who consciously objected to the illegal Iraq war. Not the thugs who enjoy murder for no objective benefit to the UK or any other country." And how do you differentiate between them? What form does that honouring take? stevo!!
  • Score: -15

7:50pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

"I, as well as many others including serving councillors, have complained that Duncan has brought the council into disrepute yet he only gets a hearing by his party ? Hmmmmm.

As for who complained about Cllr Barnett, I know two of them and they are council employees. It was a political complaint."

So who exactly are you moaning about, the councillors who pursued Barnett or the councillors who haven't pursued Duncan?
"I, as well as many others including serving councillors, have complained that Duncan has brought the council into disrepute yet he only gets a hearing by his party ? Hmmmmm. As for who complained about Cllr Barnett, I know two of them and they are council employees. It was a political complaint." So who exactly are you moaning about, the councillors who pursued Barnett or the councillors who haven't pursued Duncan? stevo!!
  • Score: -17

8:10pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Ambo Guy says...

I just knew that the Green supporters would come on here spouting the usual spin and bull***t about this.

Ben Duncan is a vile excuse for a human being. He had shown through his support for the SmashEDO thugs and his contempt for the armed forces exactly where his loyalties lie. There is no excuse for his behaviour and he should leave B&H and not look back.
I just knew that the Green supporters would come on here spouting the usual spin and bull***t about this. Ben Duncan is a vile excuse for a human being. He had shown through his support for the SmashEDO thugs and his contempt for the armed forces exactly where his loyalties lie. There is no excuse for his behaviour and he should leave B&H and not look back. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 17

8:18pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Eugenius says...

Removing party affiliation from Ben as a councillor was the most severe penalty which the disciplinary inquiry panel could impose - as a local branch we have no power to expel him from the national Green Party so that wasn't under consideration (plus it would be disproportionate - I'm sure Ben as a pacifist was trying to attack the general principal of governments having armies but he missed his target and ended up insulting our service men. However this, along with other comments he has made on Twitter meant the panel felt he was falling short of the standard of behaviour we expect for a Green councillor). It wouldn't surprise me if there had been complaints to the Standards Board of the council as well, but those wheels turn more slowly so we may not know for a while.
Removing party affiliation from Ben as a councillor was the most severe penalty which the disciplinary inquiry panel could impose - as a local branch we have no power to expel him from the national Green Party so that wasn't under consideration (plus it would be disproportionate - I'm sure Ben as a pacifist was trying to attack the general principal of governments having armies but he missed his target and ended up insulting our service men. However this, along with other comments he has made on Twitter meant the panel felt he was falling short of the standard of behaviour we expect for a Green councillor). It wouldn't surprise me if there had been complaints to the Standards Board of the council as well, but those wheels turn more slowly so we may not know for a while. Eugenius
  • Score: 6

8:25pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Eugenius wrote:
Removing party affiliation from Ben as a councillor was the most severe penalty which the disciplinary inquiry panel could impose - as a local branch we have no power to expel him from the national Green Party so that wasn't under consideration (plus it would be disproportionate - I'm sure Ben as a pacifist was trying to attack the general principal of governments having armies but he missed his target and ended up insulting our service men. However this, along with other comments he has made on Twitter meant the panel felt he was falling short of the standard of behaviour we expect for a Green councillor). It wouldn't surprise me if there had been complaints to the Standards Board of the council as well, but those wheels turn more slowly so we may not know for a while.
Nice try, Jason, but the tweet was about our soldiers, NOT the UK government.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Removing party affiliation from Ben as a councillor was the most severe penalty which the disciplinary inquiry panel could impose - as a local branch we have no power to expel him from the national Green Party so that wasn't under consideration (plus it would be disproportionate - I'm sure Ben as a pacifist was trying to attack the general principal of governments having armies but he missed his target and ended up insulting our service men. However this, along with other comments he has made on Twitter meant the panel felt he was falling short of the standard of behaviour we expect for a Green councillor). It wouldn't surprise me if there had been complaints to the Standards Board of the council as well, but those wheels turn more slowly so we may not know for a while.[/p][/quote]Nice try, Jason, but the tweet was about our soldiers, NOT the UK government. stevo!!
  • Score: -10

8:25pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Hove Actually says...

Eugenius wrote:
Removing party affiliation from Ben as a councillor was the most severe penalty which the disciplinary inquiry panel could impose - as a local branch we have no power to expel him from the national Green Party so that wasn't under consideration (plus it would be disproportionate - I'm sure Ben as a pacifist was trying to attack the general principal of governments having armies but he missed his target and ended up insulting our service men. However this, along with other comments he has made on Twitter meant the panel felt he was falling short of the standard of behaviour we expect for a Green councillor). It wouldn't surprise me if there had been complaints to the Standards Board of the council as well, but those wheels turn more slowly so we may not know for a while.
Yes there has, at least 60 or so to quote Brian Foley who is the Standards and Complaints Manager
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Removing party affiliation from Ben as a councillor was the most severe penalty which the disciplinary inquiry panel could impose - as a local branch we have no power to expel him from the national Green Party so that wasn't under consideration (plus it would be disproportionate - I'm sure Ben as a pacifist was trying to attack the general principal of governments having armies but he missed his target and ended up insulting our service men. However this, along with other comments he has made on Twitter meant the panel felt he was falling short of the standard of behaviour we expect for a Green councillor). It wouldn't surprise me if there had been complaints to the Standards Board of the council as well, but those wheels turn more slowly so we may not know for a while.[/p][/quote]Yes there has, at least 60 or so to quote Brian Foley who is the Standards and Complaints Manager Hove Actually
  • Score: 5

8:34pm Wed 9 Jul 14

JHunty says...

Eugenius wrote:
Removing party affiliation from Ben as a councillor was the most severe penalty which the disciplinary inquiry panel could impose - as a local branch we have no power to expel him from the national Green Party so that wasn't under consideration (plus it would be disproportionate - I'm sure Ben as a pacifist was trying to attack the general principal of governments having armies but he missed his target and ended up insulting our service men. However this, along with other comments he has made on Twitter meant the panel felt he was falling short of the standard of behaviour we expect for a Green councillor). It wouldn't surprise me if there had been complaints to the Standards Board of the council as well, but those wheels turn more slowly so we may not know for a while.
If you have no power to decide whether to expel him from the national Green Party, what power do you have to claim such an action would be disproportionate ?
On the one hand you say you don't have the power to judge him in relation to his membership of the Green Party in the next sentence you say he is not guilty of anything that would lead to such a sanction. Errrr you can't have it both ways.
You are as confused as Stevo!! Or is it Stevo! Or is it Ania Kitkat or is it green girl or is it another sockpuppet account?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Removing party affiliation from Ben as a councillor was the most severe penalty which the disciplinary inquiry panel could impose - as a local branch we have no power to expel him from the national Green Party so that wasn't under consideration (plus it would be disproportionate - I'm sure Ben as a pacifist was trying to attack the general principal of governments having armies but he missed his target and ended up insulting our service men. However this, along with other comments he has made on Twitter meant the panel felt he was falling short of the standard of behaviour we expect for a Green councillor). It wouldn't surprise me if there had been complaints to the Standards Board of the council as well, but those wheels turn more slowly so we may not know for a while.[/p][/quote]If you have no power to decide whether to expel him from the national Green Party, what power do you have to claim such an action would be disproportionate ? On the one hand you say you don't have the power to judge him in relation to his membership of the Green Party in the next sentence you say he is not guilty of anything that would lead to such a sanction. Errrr you can't have it both ways. You are as confused as Stevo!! Or is it Stevo! Or is it Ania Kitkat or is it green girl or is it another sockpuppet account? JHunty
  • Score: 4

8:38pm Wed 9 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

"You are as confused as Stevo!! "

What am I allegedly confused about?
"You are as confused as Stevo!! " What am I allegedly confused about? stevo!!
  • Score: -3

8:41pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Labour won't get the by-election opportunity they seek so they can try to gain an extra cllr, but what WILL now happen is a recalculation by officers of the distribution of numbers of party Members on committees. As a Cllr sitting as an Independent, Ben Duncan will not be given a seat on anything much. And the Greens may lose a seat somewhere that matters to them, votewise on committees, as the Administration.
Labour won't get the by-election opportunity they seek so they can try to gain an extra cllr, but what WILL now happen is a recalculation by officers of the distribution of numbers of party Members on committees. As a Cllr sitting as an Independent, Ben Duncan will not be given a seat on anything much. And the Greens may lose a seat somewhere that matters to them, votewise on committees, as the Administration. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: -3

10:33pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Martha Gunn says...

Can someone please explain what it means to withdraw the whip from someone on a council group that doesn't have a whip?

Especially when he had suspended himself from the whip (that doesn't exist) before the others did it.

This looks like Greenspeak bilge of the first water to me.

They are complete clowns who should never have found a role in public life.

Roll on 2015 - Kick out Caroline and all her clowns.
Can someone please explain what it means to withdraw the whip from someone on a council group that doesn't have a whip? Especially when he had suspended himself from the whip (that doesn't exist) before the others did it. This looks like Greenspeak bilge of the first water to me. They are complete clowns who should never have found a role in public life. Roll on 2015 - Kick out Caroline and all her clowns. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 7

10:36pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Eugenius, or Mr Kitkat to use your correct name, why did you not take action when Mr Duncan tweeted bigoted comments about a Christian school being a cult and other derogatory remarks about other religions?
Why in the 21st century does the. Green Party accept intolerance and bigotry?
Eugenius, or Mr Kitkat to use your correct name, why did you not take action when Mr Duncan tweeted bigoted comments about a Christian school being a cult and other derogatory remarks about other religions? Why in the 21st century does the. Green Party accept intolerance and bigotry? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 12

10:51pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Eugenius says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
Can someone please explain what it means to withdraw the whip from someone on a council group that doesn't have a whip?

Especially when he had suspended himself from the whip (that doesn't exist) before the others did it.

This looks like Greenspeak bilge of the first water to me.

They are complete clowns who should never have found a role in public life.

Roll on 2015 - Kick out Caroline and all her clowns.
"Withdrawing the whip" is your phrase, unlike other parties the Green councillors meet weekly to discuss council agenda items and hold a democratic indicative vote on how they think the group should vote. Today's decision means that Brighton and Hove Green Party no longer recognises Ben Duncan as a Green councillor, which is a very serious statement to make and a decision which wasn't taken lightly.
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: Can someone please explain what it means to withdraw the whip from someone on a council group that doesn't have a whip? Especially when he had suspended himself from the whip (that doesn't exist) before the others did it. This looks like Greenspeak bilge of the first water to me. They are complete clowns who should never have found a role in public life. Roll on 2015 - Kick out Caroline and all her clowns.[/p][/quote]"Withdrawing the whip" is your phrase, unlike other parties the Green councillors meet weekly to discuss council agenda items and hold a democratic indicative vote on how they think the group should vote. Today's decision means that Brighton and Hove Green Party no longer recognises Ben Duncan as a Green councillor, which is a very serious statement to make and a decision which wasn't taken lightly. Eugenius
  • Score: -9

11:33pm Wed 9 Jul 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Man of steel wrote:
Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.
what's "man of steel" then if not annoying?

shut up
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: Caute3, nice and brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym whilst you spout your bile.[/p][/quote]what's "man of steel" then if not annoying? shut up getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: -2

1:37am Thu 10 Jul 14

Uncle Ruckus (No Relation) says...

He'll live in Brighton's 'Hall of Fame'
(He got there blow-by-blow)
Your kids will tell THEIR kids his name;
Nasty, cretin Duncan-Oh!
He'll live in Brighton's 'Hall of Fame' (He got there blow-by-blow) Your kids will tell THEIR kids his name; Nasty, cretin Duncan-Oh! Uncle Ruckus (No Relation)
  • Score: 6

8:17am Thu 10 Jul 14

hoveguyactually says...

stevo!! wrote:
"The only servicemen and women I honour are those who consciously objected to the illegal Iraq war. Not the thugs who enjoy murder for no objective benefit to the UK or any other country."

And how do you differentiate between them?

What form does that honouring take?
Quite right Stevo. And if, heaven forbid, Britain was attacked, as in the last war, I wonder if he would be coming out with the same fatuous statement. No, like the rest of us, he would be only too pleased to have these brave men and women defending us.

Meanwhile, I hope expulsion will wipe that stupid grin off his face and that never again will he be allowed to take part in politics.

Yet again the Greens have shown that they are incapable of preventing a crass idiot from joining their party, and his expulsion cannot hide that fact.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: "The only servicemen and women I honour are those who consciously objected to the illegal Iraq war. Not the thugs who enjoy murder for no objective benefit to the UK or any other country." And how do you differentiate between them? What form does that honouring take?[/p][/quote]Quite right Stevo. And if, heaven forbid, Britain was attacked, as in the last war, I wonder if he would be coming out with the same fatuous statement. No, like the rest of us, he would be only too pleased to have these brave men and women defending us. Meanwhile, I hope expulsion will wipe that stupid grin off his face and that never again will he be allowed to take part in politics. Yet again the Greens have shown that they are incapable of preventing a crass idiot from joining their party, and his expulsion cannot hide that fact. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 9

8:24am Thu 10 Jul 14

JHunty says...

Eugenius wrote:
Martha Gunn wrote:
Can someone please explain what it means to withdraw the whip from someone on a council group that doesn't have a whip?

Especially when he had suspended himself from the whip (that doesn't exist) before the others did it.

This looks like Greenspeak bilge of the first water to me.

They are complete clowns who should never have found a role in public life.

Roll on 2015 - Kick out Caroline and all her clowns.
"Withdrawing the whip" is your phrase, unlike other parties the Green councillors meet weekly to discuss council agenda items and hold a democratic indicative vote on how they think the group should vote. Today's decision means that Brighton and Hove Green Party no longer recognises Ben Duncan as a Green councillor, which is a very serious statement to make and a decision which wasn't taken lightly.
So serious they thanked him
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: Can someone please explain what it means to withdraw the whip from someone on a council group that doesn't have a whip? Especially when he had suspended himself from the whip (that doesn't exist) before the others did it. This looks like Greenspeak bilge of the first water to me. They are complete clowns who should never have found a role in public life. Roll on 2015 - Kick out Caroline and all her clowns.[/p][/quote]"Withdrawing the whip" is your phrase, unlike other parties the Green councillors meet weekly to discuss council agenda items and hold a democratic indicative vote on how they think the group should vote. Today's decision means that Brighton and Hove Green Party no longer recognises Ben Duncan as a Green councillor, which is a very serious statement to make and a decision which wasn't taken lightly.[/p][/quote]So serious they thanked him JHunty
  • Score: 1

8:32am Thu 10 Jul 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
I am still calling on him to resign as a city councillor. He cannot continue to draw an allowance as an elected representative for the remaining 300 days of this council.
Why? His personal views on the armed services have nothing to do with his competence as a local councillor.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: I am still calling on him to resign as a city councillor. He cannot continue to draw an allowance as an elected representative for the remaining 300 days of this council.[/p][/quote]Why? His personal views on the armed services have nothing to do with his competence as a local councillor. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: -4

9:36am Thu 10 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
I am still calling on him to resign as a city councillor. He cannot continue to draw an allowance as an elected representative for the remaining 300 days of this council.
Why? His personal views on the armed services have nothing to do with his competence as a local councillor.
The people who voted for him should have the chance at the next election on whether or not to give him their support.

I suspect that as little as of 100% of those who voted for him last time will share his opinion of our troops.
[quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: I am still calling on him to resign as a city councillor. He cannot continue to draw an allowance as an elected representative for the remaining 300 days of this council.[/p][/quote]Why? His personal views on the armed services have nothing to do with his competence as a local councillor.[/p][/quote]The people who voted for him should have the chance at the next election on whether or not to give him their support. I suspect that as little as of 100% of those who voted for him last time will share his opinion of our troops. stevo!!
  • Score: -4

3:26pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Never_Wrong says...

ThinkBrighton wrote:
ThinkBrighton wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I wonder if he'll do the honourable thing and resign as a councillor ? Thought not !!!!
Of course he won't resign he would lose the £12715.00 per annum he claims in expenses, thats £245.00 per week for being a useless fool.
Which is not nearly as much as the fool (kitkat) who is the leader of the green group, at £41755.00 or £803.00 per week.
What an utter waste of the Brighton and Hove tax payers money
No problem, just bump the parking fees up another couple of quid....after all Brighton doesn't have to rely on visitors, holiday makers and people going about their everyday lives by car!!!! Greens OUT before BN becomes a ghost town
[quote][p][bold]ThinkBrighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThinkBrighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I wonder if he'll do the honourable thing and resign as a councillor ? Thought not !!!![/p][/quote]Of course he won't resign he would lose the £12715.00 per annum he claims in expenses, thats £245.00 per week for being a useless fool.[/p][/quote]Which is not nearly as much as the fool (kitkat) who is the leader of the green group, at £41755.00 or £803.00 per week. What an utter waste of the Brighton and Hove tax payers money[/p][/quote]No problem, just bump the parking fees up another couple of quid....after all Brighton doesn't have to rely on visitors, holiday makers and people going about their everyday lives by car!!!! Greens OUT before BN becomes a ghost town Never_Wrong
  • Score: 2

5:27pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Robert Mac says...

Tommy by Kipling as relevant today as it was when Kipling wrote it in 1890.



I WENT into a public 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, " We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, go away " ;
But it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, wait outside ";
But it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap.
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! "
But it's " Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
Tommy by Kipling as relevant today as it was when Kipling wrote it in 1890. I WENT into a public 'ouse to get a pint o' beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, " We serve no red-coats here." The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I: O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, go away " ; But it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play. I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls! For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, wait outside "; But it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, O it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide. Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap. An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit. Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? " But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll. We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints, Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints; While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, fall be'ind," But it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, O it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind. You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace. For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! " But it's " Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees! Robert Mac
  • Score: 7

6:00pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Bill in Hanover says...

No doubt he'll be allowed back into the fold in a few weeks time when they think the dust has settled. but in the meantime he'll be an Independent but still follow the party line.
No doubt he'll be allowed back into the fold in a few weeks time when they think the dust has settled. but in the meantime he'll be an Independent but still follow the party line. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 2
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

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