Mystery Consortium

[P Janik (personally)]

Councillors have seen distortions and aggressive behaviour by some, certainly not all, fans. To inflame the delicate situation Richard Stokes is still receiving aggressive and nasty calls from people claiming to be STFC "fans".

 

You mention WP stadium but WP stadium ain't in Slough. Its in South Bucks.

[Barry Scott]

you still haven't answered Andrew's question Paul. Have any of the council actually approached the Thornes to broker a deal?

[Burnham Lad]

I'm sorry, Councillor, if people are calling Councillor Stokes claiming to be Slough Fans and being abusive - I hope that all of us trying to get a sensible solution have tried to behave with some dignity, whatever the frustrations.

 

You say I mention WP and point out it is in South Bucks - I believe if you read my post again, you will see I acknowledge that, by my reference to the planning application problems. Basically, the problems Burnham FC have had with South Bucks, as well, shows that Councillors across the whole area enjoy nothing more than being difficult with football clubs - we are an easy target I suppose, and kicking the clubs all over the ground is better than trying to solve the problem.

 

However, that completely ignores the point I made, that various councillors, yourself included, have indicated that you were prepared to help resolve those issues, but you have all apparently done nothing. As I said some evidence of that would be to contact Mr Deaner, or the Trust and say that you have spoken to Mayfair Communications and were prepared to broker a meeting to try and resolve the issues, since it was obvious that they would not talk to the Club. There has been no such evidence. If there was I am sure you would have only been too ready to put me right, so your silence on this point makes it abundantly clear. The fact that WP is "in SOuth Bucks" is neither here nor there - your council owned the freehold! Selling it to Mayfair was not exactly helpful.

 

I repeat, the club is just looking for the Council to help it locate a ground in the Borough. We all realise the Club has to fund itself - it has no right to expect charity, but all we need is an opportunity to have the facilities to earn our own living, through donations from fans and the sale of goods and services which people want, including watching football.

 

There are many good hearted people who support the club and are prepared to offer a helping hand to others - the charity walks and other contributions show that.

 

All we ask is that you guys in local government give us a fair crack of the whip and don't use us as a political football to score points off the people we know you despise. Sadly, whatever our political views and I expect that Slough fans come from all corners of the political spectrum, we have to deal with your group and your opponents, we do not have the luxury to decide who we like the best!

 

 

[Ted]

Quote:

P Janik (personally) said:
Councillors have seen distortions and aggressive behaviour by some, certainly not all, fans. To inflame the delicate situation Richard Stokes is still receiving aggressive and nasty calls from people claiming to be STFC "fans".

You mention WP stadium but WP stadium ain't in Slough. Its in South Bucks.

How long have you been spokesperson for someone whose party you arn't in? A very odd situation that a Council Leader uses an opposing member (Oh Matron!!) to speak on his behalf. Is it because he can't trust himself to tell the truth?

[Guest]

Cllr. Janik - how about some honesty from you.

 

Firstly why do you hide behind the councils address for your post - do you actually live in the borough? if not where?

 

Also why does your name not show up on the electoral register?

 

I await your reply

[Guest]

Still waiting

[Martin]

Quote:

P Janik (personally) said:

It does seem a strange decision for the Labour-run council to flog-off the council owned football stadium to a property developer. If that had not happened STFC would not be playing at Stag Meadow.

Perhaps you could attempt to get the facts right for once instead of distorting the truth. The fact is that Mayfair Communications had a long lease on the whole Wexham Park site. They were unwilling to grant to the football club a lease of the whole site and instead we leased the pitch which was insufficient to help support the club. Secondly, they were unwilling to provide security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act. Meaning at the end of any term we could be booted out. This is not sufficient for the Ryman League regulations. That is the reason we had to leave Wexham Park and that is the reason we will not be able to go back there. The fact that Mayfair Communications have now acquired the freehold is incidental.

I did explain that in a speech to Cabinet in which I believe you were told off by your good friend Mr. Stokes for interrupting by shuffling papers. Perhaps you should have listened, you might have learnt something.

[P Janik (personally)]

Staines Rebel,

 

You are wrong three times in just 2 short sentences.

 

Please note it is not my task to educate or enlighted any member of the public.

 

 

[P Janik (personally)]

Quote:

Martin said:I did explain that in a speech to Cabinet in which I believe you were told off by your good friend Mr. Stokes for interrupting by shuffling papers.

I did not shuffle any papers. I was not "told off" by Mr Stokes.

The inaccuracy of your comments demonstrates that several people at the same meeting don't always know what is going on around them. When in doubt "just guess" is not really the best method of accurate reporting.

[Burnham Lad]

Quote:

P Janik (personally) said:
Staines Rebel,

You are wrong three times in just 2 short sentences.

Please note it is not my task to educate or enlighted any member of the public.

You have me beat there Councillor - how can he be wrong three times in two short sentences when he asked four questions?

Do you mean he asked the wrong questions, i.e one's you don't want to answer?

Here's another one. Did you or did you not contact Mayfair Communications and ask them if they would allow you to arrange a meeting with the club to discuss the problems with the lease of the ground as you said you were prepared to do in a post some months ago?

Yes or No?

And another:

Do you believe that Slough Town Football Club ought to have a stadium commensurate with its level of football within the Borough of Slough, at which it can earn sufficient revenue to enable the club to be independent? Yes or No?

Finally:

Is the Council prepared to assist the club to find such a space?

Yes or No?

We will draw our own conclusions from your responses, if any.

[Guest]

Ok Cllr. Janik

 

I will rephrase the questions;

 

1. Do you live in the borough of Slough?

 

2. Are you registered on the electoral register in Slough?

 

3. Why dont you use your personal address?

 

The first two questions require a yes/no answer, and question three will require an extended answer.

[BFR]

Fine Paul, since you want to nitpick then no you did not shuffle papers. But you did wander around the chamber causing a distraction whilst handing out what appeared from the gallery to be photocopies of some sort, whilst Martin was making a presentation to cabinet. This showed a total lack of respect on your part and I am unaware that you made any sort of apology to Martin for your actions, even after the presentation was suspended briefly due to Cllr Anderson complaining to Cllr Stokes of your distracting behaviour.

 

Perhaps you would like to show show respect to Martin and apologise to him now.

[Barry Scott]

Quote:

P Janik (personally) said:

Quote:

Martin said:I did explain that in a speech to Cabinet in which I believe you were told off by your good friend Mr. Stokes for interrupting by shuffling papers.

I did not shuffle any papers. I was not "told off" by Mr Stokes.

The inaccuracy of your comments demonstrates that several people at the same meeting don't always know what is going on around them. When in doubt "just guess" is not really the best method of accurate reporting.

so you weren't handing out leaflets and weren't reprimanded by cllr Stokes? Could have sworn I was at that meeting and I heard that too.... Are you too embarrassed to admit that you are so very, very wrong over the whole Wexham Park issue? We made the situation surrounding that ground clear, now think of another option because we're sick and tired of saying that unless we have complete control of the ENTIRE site no one will touch the club

[Guest]

Still waiting Paul

 

Simple questions, awaiting simple answers!

[BFR]

I think you'll wait a lot time to get a simple answer SR.

[Dominic]

Maybe he's out looking for a job.

[Guest]

BFR - Cllr. Janik has nothing to hide and I am sure he is willing to answer these simple questions.

 

He has nothing to hide from the electorate of Britwell and by him being able to say that he lives in Slough and is on the electoral register will reasure everyone of his good intentions.

 

He will also have the oppertunity to explaine why he only wishes to by contacted at the council offices.

 

Cllr. Janik I am still waiting for the 3 simple answers.

 

Open government and accountable councillors.

[Martin]

Paul, "told off" may have been overstating it a little but Cllr Anderson asked that you stop and listen because it was rude and that if you wanted to distribute whatever you should do so prior to the meeting. Cllr Stokes for once agreed. By saying I think I am right here "I agree."

 

I was not guessing Paul and I have plenty of witnesses who can back me up.

 

I note though from my comments above that you pick up on one small point and ignore the substance. Same old, same old.

[RebelsRUs]

Now then, now then don't be mean to nice Cllr Janik.

 

He's in a good mood because of the lovely sunny weather.

 

Why, only this afternoon on the thisisslough forum in a thread HE initiated entitled (make sure you're sitting down before reading further, we don't want anyone passing out through shock) "Respect for Others" he said this;

 

"I propose everyone should be nice to everyone else. If you can't write something nice about another poster then please refrain."

 

Presumably, this turning over a of new leaf means that means he won't be referring to STFC supporters as "often nasty, very aggressive, rude, arrogant and uncompromising" ever again will he? Because that's not being "nice". Nor will he be continuing to suggest that anyone here has a defective memory in respect of his behaviour at meetings or anywhere else.

 

So there you have it. Cllr Janik in "nice mode". Will it last?

 

[P Janik (personally)]

Martin, no one is ever going to take you seriously if you can't be botherted to get it right.

 

Why post a misleading account in the first place?