Appeal date for YouTube Brighton councillor (From The Argus)

I still don't understand what he's supposed to have done wrong.

He took sections from the debates, which are freely available online, in order to show his readers what he was talking about.

He didn't manipulate or edit them in any way, just meant you didn't have to sit through 2+ hours of waffle to see him ask or answer a question.

The webcasts are on the council webpage if you want to see them in full, where's the problem?

(and before anyone accuses me of voting for him I didn't I just think the council is being moronic luddites and picking on him as he made their leader look bad in a debate).

Still, if he had been a Police Officer the hearing would not be for another 18 months .. on full pay.. with he option to retire and 'forget about it'

Nice to know that money is being saved by having the appeal in the Metropole rather than at the council offices.

Whole thing is a waste of money by councillors trying to discredit other parties. Be nice if they thought about the people who live here instead!

Mr Bluesky, I'm willing to be corrected here by Jason (I know he reads this)... as I understand it, he did edit the long/dull meeting to show highlights, which was considered (by those who were bothered) to be misrepresenting. This is all about politics, in every sense of the word.

dunderheads wrote:
Still, if he had been a Police Officer the hearing would not be for another 18 months .. on full pay.. with he option to retire and 'forget about it'

Is this article about a Police Officer? Is it about the Police service in any way? Thought not.

Do you have anything to say about the story???

Try to look at the story without going into rants about the Police all the time!!!

Having recently attended a council meeting and viewed the procedings from the public gallery I would state that Councillor Kitcat did everyone a great favour in trimming down the video's.

I was totally amazed at the dribble that came from the meeting I viewed from the gallery with Councillors making insulting remarks to each other whilst trying to score political points.

And keep in mind that it was Councillor Ted Kemble who made the complaint... remember that when he is up for re-election.

I would believe that it was not the fact that Councillor Kitcat had posted the video's but simply the fact that the other councillors didn't the initiative or indeed the ability to do it first.

I have witnessed Councillor Kitcat being spoken down to from the Chair of a particular meeting and in my view he was being spoken to like a naughty child which I found very disrespectful indeed.

I think that in a few years in the future when people read about this matter they will regard it as laughable just as we would laugh at some of the going on's from fifty years ago.

I hope the powers that be give Councillor Kitcat a break ;)

Mr Bluesky wrote:
I still don't understand what he's supposed to have done wrong.

He took sections from the debates, which are freely available online, in order to show his readers what he was talking about.

He didn't manipulate or edit them in any way, just meant you didn't have to sit through 2+ hours of waffle to see him ask or answer a question.

The webcasts are on the council webpage if you want to see them in full, where's the problem?

(and before anyone accuses me of voting for him I didn't I just think the council is being moronic luddites and picking on him as he made their leader look bad in a debate).

The point is he filmed them in secret before the council webcast them and then he edited them together for his own means.

TBH I don't give a dam about them being recorded but what I do give a dam about is our representives being so sneaky and underhand, if they are like this with each other good help us with there expenses.

Numptyone wrote:

Mr Bluesky wrote: I still don't understand what he's supposed to have done wrong. He took sections from the debates, which are freely available online, in order to show his readers what he was talking about. He didn't manipulate or edit them in any way, just meant you didn't have to sit through 2+ hours of waffle to see him ask or answer a question. The webcasts are on the council webpage if you want to see them in full, where's the problem? (and before anyone accuses me of voting for him I didn't I just think the council is being moronic luddites and picking on him as he made their leader look bad in a debate).

The point is he filmed them in secret before the council webcast them and then he edited them together for his own means. TBH I don't give a dam about them being recorded but what I do give a dam about is our representives being so sneaky and underhand, if they are like this with each other good help us with there expenses.

HE DIDN'T DO ANY SUCH THING! You have your facts entirely wrong! Why is it that every time a report on this issue is published, someone claims that Kitcat "secretly made recordings"?

I guess it's because what he ACTUALLY did was so innocuous people think there must be more to it.

Andy R wrote:

Numptyone wrote:

Mr Bluesky wrote: I still don't understand what he's supposed to have done wrong. He took sections from the debates, which are freely available online, in order to show his readers what he was talking about. He didn't manipulate or edit them in any way, just meant you didn't have to sit through 2+ hours of waffle to see him ask or answer a question. The webcasts are on the council webpage if you want to see them in full, where's the problem? (and before anyone accuses me of voting for him I didn't I just think the council is being moronic luddites and picking on him as he made their leader look bad in a debate).

The point is he filmed them in secret before the council webcast them and then he edited them together for his own means. TBH I don't give a dam about them being recorded but what I do give a dam about is our representives being so sneaky and underhand, if they are like this with each other good help us with there expenses.

HE DIDN'T DO ANY SUCH THING! You have your facts entirely wrong! Why is it that every time a report on this issue is published, someone claims that Kitcat "secretly made recordings"?

I guess it's because what he ACTUALLY did was so innocuous people think there must be more to it.

Ok AndyR, first of all why are you shouting? That is rude and ignorant.

If I am wrong about them being made secretly then they were made without the full consent of the other members which is wrong. But I do note that you haven't challenges the point regarding the editing of the clips for his/his parties gain or that it was a sneaky and underhand thing to do.

Mr R, is it correct that I film you at a business meeting without your consent edit it to my advantage and then publish it on youtube?

Hi Numptyone

Sorry to correct you here, but Jason took recordings that the council had made and edited them. So he did nothing wrong. The compaint is just that, a complaint. It's about how the edited recordings were presented. I feel sure this is just political posturing, as Jason can come across as a little bit forthright in his views, which isn't readily accepted by the more traditional... The original accusation isn't about party politics it's something along the lines of "that's not a nice thing to do"... Storm in a tea cup for everyone except those involved.

Numptyone wrote:

Andy R wrote:

Numptyone wrote:

Mr Bluesky wrote: I still don't understand what he's supposed to have done wrong. He took sections from the debates, which are freely available online, in order to show his readers what he was talking about. He didn't manipulate or edit them in any way, just meant you didn't have to sit through 2+ hours of waffle to see him ask or answer a question. The webcasts are on the council webpage if you want to see them in full, where's the problem? (and before anyone accuses me of voting for him I didn't I just think the council is being moronic luddites and picking on him as he made their leader look bad in a debate).

The point is he filmed them in secret before the council webcast them and then he edited them together for his own means. TBH I don't give a dam about them being recorded but what I do give a dam about is our representives being so sneaky and underhand, if they are like this with each other good help us with there expenses.

HE DIDN'T DO ANY SUCH THING! You have your facts entirely wrong! Why is it that every time a report on this issue is published, someone claims that Kitcat "secretly made recordings"? I guess it's because what he ACTUALLY did was so innocuous people think there must be more to it.

Ok AndyR, first of all why are you shouting? That is rude and ignorant. If I am wrong about them being made secretly then they were made without the full consent of the other members which is wrong. But I do note that you haven't challenges the point regarding the editing of the clips for his/his parties gain or that it was a sneaky and underhand thing to do. Mr R, is it correct that I film you at a business meeting without your consent edit it to my advantage and then publish it on youtube?

Oh dear. I was trying to emphasise a point. Clearly to no avail in your case!

Does anybody actually know what Coun Kitcat actually did? I though the claim was that he had edited the offical council webcast to make a political point in some way. Can the Argus just show us the two versions on this website so that we can make our own minds up about what happened? After all we are the voters - it is what we think that matters, not what the council thinks.

Numptyone wrote:

Andy R wrote:

Numptyone wrote:

Mr Bluesky wrote: I still don't understand what he's supposed to have done wrong. He took sections from the debates, which are freely available online, in order to show his readers what he was talking about. He didn't manipulate or edit them in any way, just meant you didn't have to sit through 2+ hours of waffle to see him ask or answer a question. The webcasts are on the council webpage if you want to see them in full, where's the problem? (and before anyone accuses me of voting for him I didn't I just think the council is being moronic luddites and picking on him as he made their leader look bad in a debate).

The point is he filmed them in secret before the council webcast them and then he edited them together for his own means. TBH I don't give a dam about them being recorded but what I do give a dam about is our representives being so sneaky and underhand, if they are like this with each other good help us with there expenses.

HE DIDN'T DO ANY SUCH THING! You have your facts entirely wrong! Why is it that every time a report on this issue is published, someone claims that Kitcat "secretly made recordings"? I guess it's because what he ACTUALLY did was so innocuous people think there must be more to it.

Ok AndyR, first of all why are you shouting? That is rude and ignorant. If I am wrong about them being made secretly then they were made without the full consent of the other members which is wrong. But I do note that you haven't challenges the point regarding the editing of the clips for his/his parties gain or that it was a sneaky and underhand thing to do. Mr R, is it correct that I film you at a business meeting without your consent edit it to my advantage and then publish it on youtube?

Well done! Other than the fact that no-one was filmed without their consent, plus the fact that Jason Kitcat didn't do any filming at all, you've managed to sum up the situation perfectly. Keep up the good work.

Dull as they are, the web broadcasts are a useful way to follow the democratic process - you can click on links to the bits you're interested in & skip procedurals. As soon as the footage is edited it becomes subjective and this is where the problem lies. Once the inevitable bias in there, the democratic function is undermined. Or is it? Perhaps the most democratic and effective way to use the webcasts would be to make them freely available to councillors and other web broadcasters (eg latest tv) to edit and re-present to their audiences.