"Next time, I want a guard of honour"

[Inspector Knacker]

When it comes to 'fake news' they could give  a master class

[marky]

remember the purchase o Jacksons Landing and the quick flip - talk about fake news

[akarjl]

Akers-Belcher has adopted the whole "fake news" thing, he was spouting off on facebook calling the idea that removing public questions from full council is up for discussion tomorrow "fake news".

That "fake news" argument was quickly shot down by people who sent him screen shots of the agenda for tomorrow.

To be a good liar you have to be logical,have a decent memory and a semblance of intelligence- oddly it seems people choose not to believe him.

[DRiddle]

I'm still a little taken aback by the whole claim that he did NOT say the duplicate accounts submitted by MRA were due to a mistake by the charity commission.

Countless people on this site and current (and previous) councillors were there when he said it. It's been mentioned on here hundreds of times over the last 5 years and never once have I heard him try to deny saying it before.

The question which led to the denial is minuted and there's reference to the 'debate' in which he said it also minuted.

I'm told there's even an audio recording of him saying it... 

Still, that's probably just more fake news. 

We live in strange times politically.

[mk1]

I'm still a little taken aback by the whole claim that.................

Labour are working to a plan. It is no coincidence this is all happening at once. SD is part of that plan. They are trying to sow doubt and the worst thing anyone can do is engage in minute detailed debate about the issues they are denying. Ignore all the silly one-line posts asking for follow-ups or a  simple denial of  everything. If 'you' must reply to these shills then best to simply repeat the initial claims in every reply. Get the message out and let the reader make up their own mind.
This is a very basic news-management technique and tying everyone up in responding to the denials is exactly what they want to do
Keep repeating the SCABs 'open door' complaint. It plays exactly to the public perception of the SCABs. It is a very powerful story and it needs no further explanation. Remember that Google searches will find any linkage to the keyword 'Akers-Belcher'. Labour are desperate to link these stories with 'Fake News' and that is why they keep using the words.
Play them at their own game and stop giving SD the  means to  get his message into Google searches without a link to the original complaints.

In short folks stop being led by the nose and attack the fecking shill rather than responding/ reacting to him.

[fred c]

To echo mk1, but not as eloquently put............ Just Ignore the Pr**k.......plzzzzzz

[steveL]

Just for clarity on this one.

The comment was volunteered by CAB at full council in April 2012 when he stated that the discrepancy over the Manor Residents accounts (2008/09 and 2009/10) was caused by an 'error' on the part of the Charity Commission who had uploaded the same set of accounts twice.

There were two problems with CAB's statement:

1. The Charity Commission aren't responsible for uploading any accounts - that's the task of the charity concerned.
2. Although almost identical, there were a couple of differences between the two sets of accounts (amounting to several thousand pounds, I might add). This was enough to say that the files were not identical and, as all you computer whizzes will know, this means that the two files would have to have different file names. Consequently, the idea that the same file was uploaded twice by anyone is completely false.

What had happened is that a copy of the completed 2008/09 accounts which had been compiled by Ged Hall had been used as a starting point for the 2009/10 accounts. A couple of things were added and then these 'new' accounts, which were nothing of the sort, were uploaded to the Charity Commission by Wilcox.

When the minutes of the April meeting were published in June, prior to the June council meeting, there was no mention of CAB's statement. This was challenged by Geoff Lilley and CAB agreed for the minutes to be amended to include his comment.

The amended minutes didn't appear until July 2012 with the following correction:



This was part of the exchange between Riddle and CAB last week: (click to enlarge)

[mk1]

The last post needs no further elucidation. Any post that disputes the detail or questions the veracity should  receive a reply that is only the above repeated in or a link to same.

Just a little tip. Including a combination of the words  'Akers Belcher's/doors in a post will catch the attention of Google.

[akarjl]

Spot on MK1- another tip goole indexes images furiously.....so if you are uploading an image to here re name it to something like

"akers-belcher demand doorman holds door open for them-1.jpg"

Or "akers-belcher wanted to to stop the public asking questions at council meetings-1.jpg"

Or "labour supports deny Acker-belcher tried to ban questions despite it being documented by council"

Etc

Goole also loves http://blogger.com blogs...free to create.....post a couple of one-liner posts with a link to posts here and the traffic and ranking will come.