Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Reply | |
Posted by: | vincent paul wrigley | |
Date/Time: | 19/09/20 13:03:00 |
Aren’t we lucky to have two distinguished clinical psychologists contributing to the Forum to declare Mr Farmer “unbalanced”. Jones and Southwell. I checked out Mr Jones some time ago. His “fixation” is on Mr Farmer. This thread was preceded by the open letter Mr Farmer sent to Bell, asking him about Najsarek’s appointment. Jones engaged in a speculative defence of Najsarek and the Council. Mr Farmer analysed one of his contributions rather too effectively for Jones’ liking. Jones then lapsed into making foolish comments. (“ I think it is pretty clear that Andrew Farmer is a complete and utter tupperware polisher.”) I assume he was sore at being shown up. Both Mr Jones and Mr Southwell have engaged – with no evidence to adduce – in speculation about what occurred during the appointment process. They assume it was conducted honestly. They both put favourable interpretations on the behaviour of those involved. They have NO IDEA what went on. No one has, except those involved. We are always assured that these senior appointments are made after thorough scrutiny of the candidates. Mr Najsarek was appointed “following a rigorous interview process. Tony Clements was appointed “following a rigorous interview process”. Vague reach-me-down reassuring words. But we are unable to scrutinise the supposed scrupulosity of the scrutiny. Questions need to be asked. Mr Farmer has asked one. If Mr Jones does not think that a council leader lying is important, I do. If he thinks there are more important things to hold Bell to account for, he should start threads of his own in respect of them and stop obsessing about Mr Farmer. It adds nothing to the debate. Mr Bell could answer Mr Farmer’s perfectly reasonable question NOW. Why doesn't Mr Farmer ask Bell the question again? Vincent Wrigley |