MEP makes fraud claim against council over Ricoh funding (2 Viewers)

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It used the word 'corrupt'. That's not insignificant. The difference between Facebook and here is that Mark Zuckerberg has a net worth in the region of $30 billion; whereas I don't think Nick has.

And if there's one thing I've learned over the years, is that there's less justice in the world when your opposer has deeper pockets than you

Using words like corrupt is very ill advised - quite an extraordinary outburst really.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
So someone with something to gain from our situation makes a statement carefully not quite alleging something dodgy has happened. Sounds normal in our case to me.
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
Look, it's not fair on administrators of this board to post fare such as that. Their responsibility for your errant thoughts are a well-documented issue on here, and you should have more respect for their livelihood then to post lines that could get them into hot water

learn what a question mark is dear.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
She did make a complete change in her stance after meeting with Joy Seppala.
She has not delivered any compelling evidence to explain the about-turn, so what was it that caused her to change her mind.

Perhaps she was given an overview of the JR case against the council.
 

Nick

Administrator
She did make a complete change in her stance after meeting with Joy Seppala.
She has not delivered any compelling evidence to explain the about-turn, so what was it that caused her to change her mind.

That is the thing, most people who seem to meet with them seem to come out different people.

Yes SISU could be trying to "mute" them and say shut up else we sue you, but for them to come out and openly have a different opinion. There must be something good they have seen?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
So someone with something to gain from our situation makes a statement carefully not quite alleging something dodgy has happened. Sounds normal in our case to me.

What does she have to gain?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
So someone with something to gain from our situation makes a statement carefully not quite alleging something dodgy has happened. Sounds normal in our case to me.

What's to gain from it? Really? How will making a speech in the European Parliament buy her votes? Who from?
 

SimonGilbert

Telegraph Tea Boy
Nothing to see here it seems. Council response will be up online at Coventry Telegraph shortly.

Sounds like whoever answered the initial FOI request made a mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Nick

Administrator
Nothing to see here it seems. Council response will be up online at Coventry Telegraph shortly.

Sounds like whoever answered the initial FOI request made a mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is why we shouldn't get "carried" away like I said earlier on, could have just been different wording etc.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Perhaps she was given an overview of the JR case against the council.

Yeah - maybe. But equally, she'd have to have seen an overview of the defence before taking such a stance. A balanced view, as it were. If she hasn't seen that as yet, why not wait until the JR? It's soon enough, isn't it?

If the council are to blame, then we need to see this in a court of law; with both sides aired and all facts laid out. In fact we should al be looking forward to it, irrespective of leaning to any party in this mess, as otherwise we're arguing blind.

I have a view. You have a view. Who's right or wrong, who knows? If it's me, I'll readily acknowledge such. As I'm sure you'd do in return. If we all genuinely care for CCFC, then any party that's putting self-interest or gain over the club should be our common enemy.

With the JR so close, I don't like hate idea of waters being muddied. If Ms Sinclaire has a view or material, then surely that's where she should be adding the weight of her evidence? Why take this route?
 
Last edited:

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
That is the thing, most people who seem to meet with them seem to come out different people.

Yes SISU could be trying to "mute" them and say shut up else we sue you, but for them to come out and openly have a different opinion. There must be something good they have seen?

All a bit Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.

Are there an unusual amount of large marrows stored near the Sisu offices?
 

Nick

Administrator
Yeah - maybe. But equally, she'd have to have seen an overview of the defence before taking such a stance. A balanced view, as it were. If she hasn't seen that as yet, why not wait until the JR? t's soon eough, isn't it?

If the council are to blame, then we need to see this in a court of law; with both sides aired and all facts laid out. In fact we should al be looking forward to it, irrespective of leaning to any party in this mess, as otherwise we're arguing blind.

I have a view. You have a view. Who's right or wrong, who knows? If it's me, I'll readily acknowledge such. As I'm sure you'd do in return. If we all genuinely care for CCFC, then any party that's putting self-interest or gain over the club should be our common enemy.

With the JR so close, I don't like hate idea of waters being muddied. If Ms Sinclaire has a view or material, then surely that's where she should be adding the weight of her evidence? Why take this route?

Yes, you have view but if you then had a meeting with SISU and came out with the opposite view. It would suggest you had seen something good or had a gun to your head.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
are you scared of everything? man up

? symbolises a question. the word corrupt is part of that question.

are they? time will tell.

Not 'man up' try 'wising up'. In law, just because you follow a defamatory statement with a question doesn't make it invisible.

You typed 'corrupt council sink to a new low?'. What does the question pertain to? It seems to state that the council being corrupt is a fact, whereas the 'new low' is the element in question. Suddenly, the statement's not so innocent, is it?

And you can get into as much trouble as you like - you just shouldn't include this board's administrators in your campaign. Start up your own board, type it there, and then you'd really be 'maning up'. I'll wait, shall I?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
The thing is, I guess it depends how different. If 2 people replied then they could have meant the same thing but worded it differently rather than a generic response.

Hard to tell without seeing the question / answer.

If one replied saying "We used it for the Ricoh" and the other said "We gave it to orphans in Africa" then it is a bit dodgy.

And of course you have to wonder if the person who's job it is to respond to FOI requests actually put that much effort into checking exactly what that money was spent on or just went with something general. Unless we're talking about, as you say, something totally different then it pretty much would all go into one pot. It's not like they would have kept this money seperate just for a specific part of the project. Sure as long as they can show they have spent the amount in question on whatever it was meant for there will be no issue.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Yes, you have view but if you then had a meeting with SISU and came out with the opposite view. It would suggest you had seen something good or had a gun to your head.

If SISU have something that would make the majority change their opinion would it not be a good idea to let it be known publically?
 

old_wheat

Active Member
Nikki Sinclaire MEP, (paid?) mouthpiece for SISU?

I have been watching the actions of MEP Nikki Sinclaire closely during this whole stadium debacle. I have noticed that she is increasingly taking and extremely pro-SISU stance to the point where she has even using her European parliamentary power to undermine Coventry City Council, as demonstrated with the reports today of her reporting CCC to the European Anti-fraud department.

http://coventryobserver.co.uk/2014/...against-council-over-Ricoh-funding-99270.html

Whilst reporting the council to the European body she was also quoted as saying..

“There is something rotten at the heart of Coventry Council. Is there something fraudulent as well?”

This comes off the back of Nikki also calling for the head of Council leader Ann Lucas just a few months ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-25742737

Nikki seems to consistently peddle the SISU line and I think it is interesting that she has said nothing about the recent revelations about the lack of a new stadium site.

I don't expect her to be anti-SISU or pro-CCC, I just want her to show at least a level of balance, as she is a public figure.

The tone, rhetoric and actions of Nikki have made me lose all confidence in her impartiality to the point where I personally suspect she has been been offered political funding by SISU in exchange for her support for SISU case at local and European level. We know that Joy Seppala met Nikki Sinclaire in person last year, it wouldn't surprise me if some deal took place. It took a freedom of information request to reveal her actions against CCC in Brussels, who knows what more she has been doing there?

This is an MEP which is supposed to be representing the interests of the people of Coventry. At the very least her actions are inflammatory to relations between CCC and SISU, and this can only further damage our chances of a resolution. I suspect further foul play here.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Yes, you have view but if you then had a meeting with SISU and came out with the opposite view. It would suggest you had seen something good or had a gun to your head.

Or have a political ideology as far away from a Labour council as it's possible to get. Remember, until her fall-out with UKIP, she was a member of that party; which has - shall we say - quite right-wing views? Not going to rub along with what she must see as a town hall embracing Trotskyism, is she?
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
People think they are protected by anonymity on the Internet when that is not the case.

The council will be arranging to meet cc4life at the Wheatsheaf within the next 2 weeks.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I thought she was standing for election as an MEP again.

So how does attacking the council on an issue that we are told everyone but a handful support them on makes it populist? Surely the strategy would be to attack sisu and lobby parliament against them?
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
I think that the council would do well to avoid her like the plague. In my view she is nuts and more interested in publicity for herself than the problems of taxpayers. The stadium complex and conference facilities come under the general terms as stated. So long as the money hasn't gone into the wrong pockets or been used to develop a project to be sold later under market value to a hedge fund, I think she is splitting hairs.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Votes and popularity I guess but surely she would know she is being "against the grain". The same as the MP's who go against SISU that are praised I guess.

One of the reasons that Bob Ainsworth is up in my book is that he isn't standing again for parliament. Yes he might be trying to gain popularity but for what.
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
Not 'man up' try 'wising up'. In law, just because you follow a defamatory statement with a question doesn't make it invisible.

You typed 'corrupt council sink to a new low?'. What does the question pertain to? It seems to state that the council being corrupt is a fact, whereas the 'new low' is the element in question. Suddenly, the statement's not so innocent, is it?

And you can get into as much trouble as you like - you just shouldn't include this board's administrators in your campaign. Start up your own board, type it there, and then you'd really be 'maning up'. I'll wait, shall I?

how dare you put words in my mouth, i was askign are they corrupt?,and are they sinking to a new low?

you need to watch what you say.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
So how does attacking the council on an issue that we are told everyone but a handful support them on makes it populist? Surely the strategy would be to attack sisu and lobby parliament against them?

As I said before it gives her some free publicity.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top