Tonight's council meeting

[Matt]

I'd just like to say well done and thanks to everyone who went, particularly to Ian, Chris and Roy (Martin too) for their significant contributions, carrying the fight to Stokes et al. (Not forgetting the rest of the Trust board for their presence of course !) I'd like to think this was a small step in the right direction and a little progress has been made - however little - now let's show them we're here for the long haul with tomorrow's vigil.

[Guest]

Can someone please send Cllr. Stokes a copy of the draft study so that he can not say he has not seen it.

 

We must not give the council any oppertunity to stall this process through lack of information - if he had had a copy and failed to read it that is then his problem.

 

We must be whiter than white, as we saw tonight that councillors will pick up any little thing and attempt to twist it to thier advantage.

 

We must not play a political game with this issue as the club is apolitical, and we need to be able to work with councils of any party as hopefully the club will outlast any elected group whether that is Labour, Conservative or any other mix.

 

Otherwise a start in the right direction - but dont expect anything quick!!!!

[GarySTFC]

The supporters, bar one, behaved impeccably within the meeting which a ttimes did appear to be a continual slanging match between Labour and non-Labour, who appeared quite content to simply rubbish many of the suggestions.

 

Credit to (IMO) David MacIsaac, Rob Anderson & James Swindlehurst for putting across carefully worded points whilst trying to remain on the issue of STFC rather than previous politics and they'd done this so we can't do that. (Welcome to the world of local politics)

 

The study was freely available to any of the councillors who asked for a copy, yet it would appear that certain Cllrs could not go to this effort to gain a copy and read through the first milestone report which has been raised from the feasibility study so far.

 

I have make over 8 pages of notes which I need to compose into some legible form and I will have them on the site as and when they are ready. Don't quite know when this will be at this moment in time, but I'll get them done as soon as possible.

[Ted]

I thought the meeting was between the Council Leadership and STSA, but now it seems it was open to all councillors.

 

Does anyone know exactly who it was supposed to be between?

[GarySTFC]

It was originally billed as a closed meeting between selected councillors from the IBR and Haymill (exclusively BILLD cllrs), but then was changed late on Sunday to an open public meeting, a decision which Cllr Stokes claimed was almost forced upon him due to the interest shown in the topic.

 

Cllr Stokes did eventually apologise for this confusion caused during the meeting.

[BFR]

It was a very frustrating first hour and a half, as politcal squabbles overlooked the issue at hand. Indeed the meeting was almost abandoned at one point. But after a short break things settled down and certainly there was more of an understanding by the end of the meeting.

 

Gary will fill you in with more detail when he types up his notes

[GarySTFC]

Giving up now. Completed six pages of the eight from the notes I made and I will stress when they are published that they are only notes I have taken to the best of my ability to cover the major points of the meeting for those that were unaware/unavailable.

[Matt]

Good work Gary, everyone appreciates it.

[P Janik (personally)]

Quote:

Staines Rebel said:
Can someone please send Cllr. Stokes a copy of the draft study so that he can not say he has not seen it.

We must not give the council any oppertunity to stall this process through lack of information - if he had had a copy and failed to read it that is then his problem.

We must be whiter than white, ......

Like telling the WHOLE truth for example? After the meeting Roy told Richard Stokes he, Roy, received that 92 page report on Friday. How the hell is Richard Stokes going to get hold of a report before the meeting on Monday that Martin Deaner's own employee only obtained last Friday?

Don't knock what happened on Monday night. For the first time ever the football stadium issue was discussed in public with a council official taking notes for the record instead of in secret with the public excluded and no records kept. It may seen insignificant to you but in terms of honesty and openness it beats everything that has happened in the last 6 years under the previous Labour administration.

[GarySTFC]

A public meeting which was only officially announced to supporters some seven hours before the meeting start time? A meeting conveniently scheduled at the same time as a labour group meeting, ensuring it was making things difficult for Labour Councillors to attend the open meeting?

 

Will notes made by the council officer be made publically available? Where can I get a copy if this is the case?

 

Paul, we don't care about what's happened in the past six years under the Labour council. We did try to stress this point somewhat during the meeting that we're a football club, not a political pawn. Of all the councillors present, I think Cllr MacIsaac was the only one non-Labour that seemed to grasp this, and only Cllrs Anderson and Swindlehurst from Labour for that matter. We're in this position thanks to Cllr Stokes comments, which he now denies making, which appeared in the local press a few weeks back. I'm presuming, now that he has denied making these comments, he will be suing the local papers for libel? Certainly his comment denying making that statement were not received by the two journalists present.

 

Honesty? Six times Cllr Stokes had to be asked before admitting to not having read the first milestone report generated from the study, a report which is openly available to councillors upon request. Cllr Anderson had a copy. How come he can get hold of it, yet not the Council Leader?

[Guest]

I refer back to my original post above.

 

Cllr. Janik is already starting to take political advantage of Cllr. Stokes not having the report.

 

We must assume that all councillors are like children and need to be spoon feed with information to ensure that the true facts are available to all proptly, rather than sit back and assume that they will source information themselves.

 

We need to drive this so that we can progress this situation at a sensible speed, rather than allow councillors to keep avoiding making decisions and having to make commitments.

[Ted]

Quote:

Like telling the WHOLE truth for example?

Perhaps telling the whole truth includes you Paul. Here's a quote from the Observer community forum, made by you under one of your many aliases,"Lets destroy Kennedy Park"

"There are about 400 regular football supporters of Slough Town Football Club. There are more than 10,000 Britwell residents, one Martyn Deaner who wants to get rich and 119,000+ residents in the borough of Slough.

.......I think Cllr Anderson should be using the council's scarce resources NOT for 400 football supporters ......needs are more important than those of 400 strange people who worship a circular object being kicked around."

Hardly the words of someone who is interested in helping football in Slough.

The Whole Truth?----Why did you post under an alias---one of many.
The whole truth?----what other aliases did you post under?
The whole truth, why don't you ever answer questions yourself with the whole truth?