Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza
The Egg Man wrote:Delmont St Xavier wrote:yoker brian wrote:I have no problem with Mr Matheson having an affair, nor do I have a problem with his sexuality, these are after all private matters and not for the titillation of the citizens of Glasgow.
But what I do have issues with is that he was caught by the Police engaging in an alleged sexual act in a public place, its hardly behaviour befitting of the Office of Council Leader.
I agree! I don't think his sexuality is an issue or his betrayal of his partner as that's his business but as a the holder of the top office in Glasgow, I personally think a little honour would go a long way.
So, if it's not his sexuality nor his betrayal of his partner, what does his position as Leader of the Council have to do with anything?
Dexter St. Clair wrote:The people seeking to get rid of Mathieson are the same people who authorised an unnecessary £500,000 golden goodbye to the former head of GERA and also backed up Robert Booth's plan to give Glasgow's glass recycling to Viridor after the Booth's own department ran a successful pilot. Viridor promptly gave the collection part of the deal to a sub contractor who fucked it up in the first week.
One also has to remember that the permanent depute leader of the SNP managed to accuse a 78 year old councillor of assault after he and his team barged into a surgery. I presume that means only Conservative David Meikle can take a moral position on the current situation.
SomeRandomBint wrote:As a GCC employee, I can potentially lose my job through my behaviour - even on the internet & even if I'm not talking about GCC at the time.
I would expect that our councillors would be subject to the same expectations of behaviour as the rest of us. In that position I'd at the very least expect to be subject to a disciplinary.
SomeRandomBint wrote:Aye, insufficient evidence of a crime. Not insufficient evidence of the act taking place.
It's not just criminal acts which get you into trouble now.
I'm not saying I want to see the guy out on his ear, because I don't think it's that big a deal really. It's more the feeling I get that it's one rule for them, another for the rest of us.
The Egg Man wrote:[quote=
I'm not saying I want to see the guy out on his ear, because I don't think it's that big a deal really. It's more the feeling I get that it's one rule for them, another for the rest of us.
The Egg Man wrote:
So, if it's not his sexuality nor his betrayal of his partner, what does his position as Leader of the Council have to do with anything?
hound dog wrote: .........................
Just read the other night his comments about the statues as being "lifeless relics of a bygone age" - and that's the guy responsible for running one of the greatest Victorian cities in the world
hound dog wrote:The Egg Man wrote:
So, if it's not his sexuality nor his betrayal of his partner, what does his position as Leader of the Council have to do with anything?
Maybe some people consider that engaging in a criminal act is not very appropriate behaviour for the Leader of the Council
Return to Glasgow Chat (Coffee Lounge)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests