Council Cabinet Meeting outcome - long post!

[Guest]

I put my name on my postings and Big Fat Rebel is too shy and embarrassed to post with his real name. I wonder why?

 

BigFatRebel writes

 

[color:"red"]Slough Borough Councillors posting on the forum??? [color:"blue"]Its a public forum.

 

[color:"red"]I would have hoped that public officials would find better uses of their time rather than resort to peurile re-election tactics at the expense one of the few groups proud to be associated with the town, i.e. the football club supporters. [color:"blue"]Councillors, except some paid Labour ones, are unpaid. Their time is their own. Public Official? Golly that is something new. Where did you get that idea from? Any idea what a public official actually is? To keep you happy I will try to campaign in your ward and distribute some leaflets.

 

[color:"red"]I believe it is in the Code of Conduct of Councillors for members to 'treat others with respect and consideration.' Therefore I must ask you in future not to refer to Slough Town Football Club supporters as 'you lot'. I must also protest your mocking of Ian, who has presented an honest account of the meeting.[color:"blue"]Mocking? Perhaps you should abandon your French studies and concentrate on the English language. You can ask whatever you like.

 

[color:"red"]Rather than continue behaving as an incompetent, self-important, irreverent fool, perhaps now would be a good time to actually behave like a public official and serve the people of Slough.[color:"blue"]Tell us more about being an official. You perhaps because of the extra payment given but me? Never ever saw that in the council's job spec. Which page is it on?

 

I was speaking to one of your colleagues this afternoon - the nice one. Apologies for not asking how you were progressing but I didn't want to spoilt the conversation.

[Guest]

Quote:

Paul said:
It was reported that he lives in Iver Heath - He seemed to find the allegations somewhat uncomfortable and never actually denied it!

[color:"blue"]Untrue like most thinks you have written about me.[/color]

[Guest]

[color:"red"]For someone who claims not to dislike STFC or Deaner, you have a very odd way of showing it.

 

[color:"blue"]It was you who made the very public statement[color:"red"] Janik says "I don't care about the knock-on effects, I want to dig my heels in and be obstructive"[color:"blue"] Not me. You know I never uttered those words. Are too much of a coward to write "sorry" and leave it at that?

 

[Paul]

Janik,

 

Stop persisting in being a fool.

 

It is well known that you delight in finding out as much as you can about other people. It is you that was made to look a fool on the Community forum when you posted about another Councillor allegedly living somewhere else. You seem very interested in others' wishes for privacy and yet you are sooooooo private when it comes to your own. Why is it that your address is one of only two of the Slough Councillors' not to appear on the website. I seem to recall some pathetic reason why your photo doesn't appear on the site either.

 

I will not apologise for anything that I have written - it was perfectly clear from my initial post that I wasn't quoting you - The word "says" denotes present tense. Had I been quoting you, I would have used the word "said". Perhaps the nuances of the English language are too hard for you to understand.

 

So tell me, seeing as everyone knows you didn't say the explicit words "I don't care about the knock-on effects, I want to dig my heels in and be obstructive", how do you justify publishing a private e-mail?

 

What's the betting you do what you've done in the past and try and find out who I am and where I live etc. I'm sure you're already subscribing me for loads of spam e-mails.

 

Let's face it, you are a sad little man with zero imagination and a rather sinister penchant for cyber stalking people. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you don't fool me.

[Louise]

Quote:

Anonymous said:
I put my name on my postings

ROFLMAO......yeah so far on here you seem to.....but some of us know you as the man of umpteen aliases somewhere else don't we? And weren't you a busy boy hitting that old delete key earlier on today on "that other forum"....

I expect we can look forward to your usual habit of numerous daft pseudonyms on here now that we've all been so mean to you.....and I also bet you're busy right now trying to find out who we all are as well.....and then the next bit will be to accuse us all of being members of the Labour Party.....yeah, we all know your modus operandi Manic Janik.

[Paul]

Quote:

Louise said:
and then the next bit will be to accuse us all of being members of the Labour Party

If he accuses me of being involved with the Labour party, then it just proves he has several screws loose.

[Guest]

Don't take Paul Janik too seriously---he is a sad man who has lost touch with reality. He criticises others for useing a psuedonym, but frequently uses a variety of psuedonyms himself---both on the thisisslough.com community board, and on a variety of noticeboards he runs himself. When the threads go against him, he deletes them, and denies they've ever existed. He regularly resorts to threatening to take people to court, religiously notes peoples ISP numbers and stalks people who disagree with him.

 

Had the Labour council come out against the proposal, it is likely that Mr Janik would now be argueing the opposite way---he is motivated by a peculiar mixture of his own self importance and a deep rooted hatred of the local Labour party.

 

I am a regular poster on this site, but am posting under a psuedonym this time due to his past history of cyberstalking. One of the saddest things about him is that he is not a wind up merchant, he genuinely beleives what he writes, even when it directly contradicts what he has said earlier. Argueing with him is a total waste of time and energy---he lives in a fantasy world.

[Roger Rebel]

I am a member of the Cippenham Labour Party, and i'm sure that the only reason that Janks is against this plan is that it is a Labour idea.

[Louise]

Quote:

Paul said:

Quote:

Louise said:
and then the next bit will be to accuse us all of being members of the Labour Party

If he accuses me of being involved with the Labour party, then it just proves he has several screws loose.

Janik's usual methods of dealing with anyone he percieves to be attacking him invariably involve some or all of the following responses -

1) The use of the word "liar"
2) The use of the word "coward"
3) Chastising people for posting under pseudonyms
4) Accusing people of being members of the Labour Party
5) Threatening court action

Someone calling themselves "Slough Town Crap" posted a whole stream of rather unpleasant abusive comments relating to STFC and the Kennedy Park issue on the Slough Community forum yesterday evening/this morning. All of these posts have now been edited and effectively removed, but whoever did that could not remove the comments that others had quoted in their responses.....the writing style and presentation of these posts was very similar to that used by the esteemed Cllr Janik.....there have been many other anti-STFC/Kennedy Park posts made on that forum over the past week or so, by people with rather silly pseudonyms, again and this may be mere coincidence naturally, all inthe style of good old Cllr Janik.....

I think his mind's made up......he doesn't like us and he doesn't want us and it's a waste of time trying to enter into rational discussion with him due to his single-minded determination to go against anything Slough Borough Council are even considering just for the sheer hell of it. There's no rational logic and seemingly no desire to represent the electorate in a balanced and level manner such is his rabid hatred of those in power at the Town Hall.....that's his agenda - anti-SBC and very little else......

[Guest]

I forgot to mention that the many psuedonymed Mr Janik has made several posts on the Slough community forum, not in the name of Janik, criticising the proposals to develop the park.

 

I find it interesting that an elected councillor (Britwell Independant), should by having multiple names, try to pervert the democratic process, by pretending to be more than 1 person. Be prepared for a dirty campaign of distortions, smears, false rumours, manipulated quarter truths, and utter bunkum with that dipstick on the case.

 

[Guest]

Well said (paul on line Rebels)

 

Mr Janik fails to understand we are passionate about our football ! and that we are representing our Town ! and under increasing circumstances in harder times for non league supporters !

 

We are proud to support Slough , which is a part of Slough and Berkshire !

 

yes lets ask yes but you would not like it in your back yard ? to which I would say Yes I would, and we tried so hard to get it here, but came up against the independant councillor Mr Haines would campaigned against the club !

 

We even had support from the local residents of Boarderside and Charles gardens who were going to get the stadium to look at !!! but we had Green Belt issue's and the allotements holders ! which was a non starter for us !

 

So after 15 years we have been given a ray of hope on a brown field site in an area that does need regeneration and we should be working together to ensure its a win win situation for all parties , to be greeted by negative reactions before anything has been put on paper...

 

Takes this to a polical plain .... of the independants versus the labour party... while the real issue of re generation (yes it will have a stadium) but lots of other faclities to go with them and any other things that local residents might put forward as ideas....being used as bait to fuel the local residents in thinking they are going to have a third world war on its door step every time Slough play....

 

Think again mr Janik.....

 

you may be in it to destroy the best offer of help your going to get for some of your plans and the residents wishes ...that may never ever come along again....

 

 

cheers Chris Sliski

STSA

 

[GarySTFC]

Quote:

(3) According to information on the Internet Mr Deaner appears to have connections with bankruptcy, business debts of £22,500 and £80,000, the failures of Newbury Football Club and Oxford Football Club and a government investigation into murky off-shore financial dealings. Why does Mr Deaner's past associations make him the council's preferred bidder for the Kennedy Park sell-off?

This is my only concern with Mr Deaner taking control of the program. Whilst it has the potential to be a fantastic venture for the majority of Britwell Residents AND [color:"blue"]SLOUGH TOWN[/color] Football Club, Mr Deaner could be dragged over the coals for his past and more recent financial dealings.

Quote:

(4) Is it true Mr Deaner wanted to build a 6,000 capacity football stadium, casino, offices, 200 bed hotel etc. in another part of Slough. He was associated with similar plans in Oxford which failed. Mr Deaner is quoted on page 80 of the Slough Observer dated 5 September 2003 as saying the Kennedy Park project is far bigger than he wanted to get involved in. Why has Slough Borough Council told Mr Deaner he can plan to do whatever he likes on Britwell? (SBC briefing to me)

To say he failed is wrong. He was opposed, vehemently, by indiependant councillor Tony Haines, and more constructively Cllr McIsaac, who in his defence at least tried to put a balanced view across.

As for the briefing, once we see that official document then we'll have a good read of it. Do what he likes with Britwell? Why hasn't he planned more than what he has then? The more he plans, the more financial backing he can call on, the more money he could potentially stand to make.

[GarySTFC]

Another point which has not been brought up anywhere. Supporters, off their own back, were proud to donate a cheque for £1,000 to Slough League of Friends last year after the completion of the sponsored walk to their final league game. They hope to have raised a similar amount again this year for the same charity, and proceed with a donation to Mary Bloom some time later this season.

 

Also last season, due to the clubs run in the FA Cup, £24,000 was donated to local charities, including Slough League of Friends and Taplow Traffic Trust. If this isn't helping out the local community then what is? Imagine what we can do when we're integrated more with the local community than we are at present...

[Ian]

To reiterate the point I made at the beginning of my original post, I did not attend the meeting with the intention of taking notes and posting a record of events. My attendance was purely in support of a football club for which I care deeply about. However, I decided to post what I felt was a fair and accurate representation of what was discussed for the benefit of those Slough Town supporters who were unable to attend. As such, what was posted above was done so largely from memory.

 

If Councillor Janik feels I have misrepresented either him or Councillor Shine then I would more than happy to discuss this face to face and can be contacted via ian@sloughtownfc.net to arrange a mutually convenient time.

 

If it transpires that I have either misquoted or given an unfair representation of events I will gladly apologise and post on this forum accordingly. What I am not prepared to do is to enter into a public debate or respond to flippant comments made on a public football forum which I am shocked a local Councillor would resort to.

[GarySTFC]

Well said Ian. You said at the start of your original posting that you had hoped to convey a fair and accurate representation of events and were quite happy to be corrected on any of the points.

 

I'd also like to Echo Ian's comment. Let's not turn this into a personal slanging match between supporters and Cllr Janik. Let's focus our energies on supporting the Club and the proposals.

[Guest]

[color:"red"]Rebel Paul wrote: It is well known that you delight in finding out as much as you can about other people.[/color] [color:"blue"]Great discussion about Kennedy Park. Do post the proof of your allegation.

 

[color:"red"] It is you that was made to look a fool on the Community forum when you posted about another Councillor allegedly living somewhere else. [color:"blue"]Please refresh my memory. Are you refering to the Labour councillor Cllr Nigel Rushby who set-up in secret a property development company he never declared at council meetings? A Labour councillor who gives residents his 'home' phone number which turns out to be a fax line in the Town Hall? Surely not a Labour councillor who uses an address where he does not live as proof of his elligibilty for contesting local elections?

 

[color:"red"]Why is it that your address is one of only two of the Slough Councillors' not to appear on the website.[color:"blue"]My correspondence address is clearly shown together with home telephone number, fax, mobile and email details. More details than any Labour councillor.

 

[color:"red"]I seem to recall some pathetic reason why your photo doesn't appear on the site either. [color:"blue"] Typical Labour attitude. Street light missing for 512 days. Elderly people couldn't see where to walk. My protest got a new street light installed.

 

[color:"red"]I will not apologise for anything that I have written[color:"blue"] OK.

 

[color:"red"]how do you justify publishing a private e-mail?[color:"blue"] You wrote a misleading account of what you actually did write to me. Hence the publishing. I hope it reminded you of what you actually did write. Next time do keep a copy of your outgoing emails. Do you need a copy of the abusive email you sent to me?

 

[color:"red"]What's the betting you do what you've done in the past and try and find out who I am and where I live etc. [color:"blue"] That may be how you get your weird kicks but I have more appealing things to do.

 

[color:"red"]I'm sure you're already subscribing me for loads of spam e-mails. [color:"blue"] You know as well as me one of your senior Labour councillor friends is actually the person who subscribers others to junk mails. Its a Labour harrassing tactic. When you next see Cllr George Davidson please remind him he owes me an appology for the junk mail.

 

 

[Guest]

[color:"red"]Roger Rebel wrote

 

I am a member of the Cippenham Labour Party, and i'm sure that the only reason that Janks is against this plan is that it is a Labour idea.

 

[color:"blue"]Any plan involving the effective destruction of a public park should be a non-political matter and not a political issue promoted by Labour distributing Labour Red Rose leaflets. You can blame Labour for making the matter so political. STFC must have known it might damage them by becoming politically involved with New Labour.

 

 

[Louise]

Quote:

Anonymous said:
[color:"red"]I'm sure you're already subscribing me for loads of spam e-mails. [color:"blue"] You know as well as me one of your senior Labour councillor friends is actually the person who subscribers others to junk mails. Its a Labour harrassing tactic. When you next see Cllr George Davidson please remind him he owes me an appology for the junk mail.

[/color][/color]

See....what did I tell you.....you oppose him, you're obviously in cahoots with the Labour leaders of SBC....he follows a script...

The bloke has precisely zero imagination.....no-one has a mind of their own to him.

What's next then Janik me old Broad Bean? Legal action? You're so predictable...

oh and Gary - he won't let you not have a slanging match - that's his style.....

[Paul]

Mr Janik,

 

Kindly retract the comments about me having friends in the Labour Party.

 

I have voted Tory at every election save the last when I didn't vote.

 

I need no proof of my allegations regarding your cyber stalking - I, along with many other inhabitants of both this and the Community forum, know exactly what you are like. If you don't like it, sue me for libel (That WAS what was coming next, wasn't it?).

 

I am referring to the Labour Councillor whose home you telephoned and asked if he lived there. The Councillor whose mother said "He treats this place like a hotel" (or similar). Most normal people would take that as a yes, he does live there. I'm sure my parents said the same to me when I was living at home. But no, you took it to mean that he didn't live there, much to the amusement of everyone who read your accusations.

 

Quote:

Why is it that your address is one of only two of the Slough Councillors' not to appear on the website.My correspondence address is clearly shown together with home telephone number, fax, mobile and email details. More details than any Labour councillor.

 

Okay, let me rephrase the question for you...Why do you not have your HOME address on the Slough Council website? Why do you feel it necessary to have a phone number that masks the exchange? Could it, perhaps be that you don't actually live in Britwell and are afraid that your address and REAL STD code could give that away?

 

Quote:

I seem to recall some pathetic reason why your photo doesn't appear on the site either. Typical Labour attitude. Street light missing for 512 days. Elderly people couldn't see where to walk. My protest got a new street light installed.

 

Explain to me again how that has a damn thing to do with your photo not being on the website. If it was as a protest, then surely it would be sensible to get your picture on the site now? Perhaps there's another secretive reason?

 

Quote:

how do you justify publishing a private e-mail? You wrote a misleading account of what you actually did write to me. Hence the publishing. I hope it reminded you of what you actually did write. Next time do keep a copy of your outgoing emails. Do you need a copy of the abusive email you sent to me?

 

Nothing I posted on here was, in any way, misleading. Your responses were somewhat blunt and curt. I did not send you anything that could, in any way, be construed as abusive. Everything I sent you contained factual statements and questions only. The only word you could possibly take task with is "smallminded" and that, I'm afraid to say, is not abusive, merely fact.

 

Quote:

What's the betting you do what you've done in the past and try and find out who I am and where I live etc. That may be how you get your weird kicks but I have more appealing things to do.

 

Oh, you must have changed your ways from the days when you used to go around finding out people's names and addresses on the forums. I recall you telling someone they were Scottish for some reason. You cannot deny this as I (and many others) witnessed you doing it.

 

Quote:

I'm sure you're already subscribing me for loads of spam e-mails. You know as well as me one of your senior Labour councillor friends is actually the person who subscribers others to junk mails. Its a Labour harrassing tactic. When you next see Cllr George Davidson please remind him he owes me an appology for the junk mail.

 

Seeing as I have never met any Councillor in Slough, it would be hard for me to tell Mr Davidson anything. I'm sure the Labour Party would be very interested to know that you are accusing them of such tactics.

 

 

 

[Guest]

[color:"red"]Rebel Paul wrote

 

I need no proof of my allegations regarding your cyber stalking - I, along with many other inhabitants of both this and the Community forum, know exactly what you are like. If you don't like it, sue me for libel (That WAS what was coming next, wasn't it?). [color:"blue"]How can anyone sue an anonymous person, i.e. you, who can't be identified? Cyber Staking? More lies and I would love to see your "proof".

 

[color:"red"]I am referring to the Labour Councillor whose home you telephoned and asked if he lived there. [color:"blue"] Totally false. Deliberately untrue. No wonder you are afraid to post using your full name.

 

[color:"red"]The Councillor whose mother said "He treats this place like a hotel" (or similar). Most normal people would take that as a yes, he does live there. I'm sure my parents said the same to me when I was living at home. But no, you took it to mean that he didn't live there, much to the amusement of everyone who read your accusations. [color:"blue"] Oh dear. Why are you making things up? Are you really so stupid you can't get your facts right?

 

The information came from Labour councillor Cllr Robert Anderson and NOT from me. It is part of the official records of SLough Borough Council - a copy is at http://www.slough.info//s04a/que/20020723/20020723q30.html

Its Councillors Question number 30 from 23 July 2002. Further details from the Town Hall on Slough 552288.

 

 

[color:"red"]I did not send you anything that could, in any way, be construed as abusive. [color:"blue"] Is this another joke?

 

[color:"red"]Everything I sent you contained factual statements and questions only. [color:"blue"] Doesn't factual actually imply it is true? Is so, how can your untrue statements emailed to me be "factual"?

 

[color:"red"]The only word you could possibly take task with is "smallminded" and that, I'm afraid to say, is not abusive, merely fact.[color:"blue"] No it wasn't small minded but the blantently untrue remarks in your third email.

 

[color:"red"]I recall you telling someone they were Scottish for some reason. You cannot deny this as I (and many others) witnessed you doing it.[color:"blue"] If I meet someone in the street and they speak with a Scottish accent there is a good possibility I might call them Scottish. Having lived in Scotland I can recognise and place some Scottish accents.

 

[color:"red"]I'm sure the Labour Party would be very interested to know that you are accusing them of such tactics. [color:"blue"] Mr Davidson already knows because the allegation was permanently on a web site. Thanks for reminding me to put all the material back on the web.