Points For Manorbier Sam

Manorbier Sam's previous post is Black text - points to his post are in Red.

I see that Cllrs Davies and Cllr Calver have both rushed to publish their distorted, but strangely similar, versions of the December meeting of the Community Council.

(Of course they are similar - they were both present).
Let me put the record straight. I have spoken to 3 of the 5 councillors present when the meeting opened and to 1 member of the public, their account is a little different.

(How can you put the record straight when you make it sound as if you weren't even there? You must be basing your "facts" on third party information!)
The Chairman opened the meeting and announced that because Cllr Neads, the Proper Officer, was unable to attend the meeting he was asking councillors if one of them would volunteer to take the minutes. There were no volunteers so the Chairman had no option but to adjourn the meeting(it is a legal requirement that minutes are taken at council meetings).

(Technically speaking, he should not have opened the meeting in the first place - if there was no one to take the minutes, how can the fact that he has now adjourned it be recorded?)
Both Cllr Calver and Cllr Davies suggest in their posts that someone had something to hide.

(It certainly seemed orchestrated - vice-chairman Brian Coleman was quite sure he had no intention of being helpful).
If they were genuinely concerned that there was some dire plot underway they had a simple and effective way to forestall it. One of them could have offered to take the minutes but, strangely, they too declined to do so, I wonder why!

(As the vice-chairman and Chairman Wales had no intention of being helpful - why should any other member be placed in the position that neither of them would allow themselves to be placed?)
So I repeat the question I posed in the title of this blog.
Why didn't either Davis or Calver offer to take the minutes.

(See above).
If, as they seem to suggest, there is some guilt attached to not wanting to take the minutes of the meeting then it attaches equally to them. Perhaps they are the ones with something to hide! Think about it.

(In the not too distant past, there has been much done that shouldn't have been done. There are reasons amany for the Council to have something to hide. This debacle goes someway to show it).

For your blogs to be credible Manorbier Sam, you need to stop seeking information from third parties. Posting "facts" and "putting the record straight" from what others have relayed to you just makes you the messenger of other people's opinions and you are only being drip-fed one side - that obviously make you biased.

On another note, one of your latest posts states:

Finally, can I suggest that one of the reasons for the anonymity of the Manorbier blogs is Cllr Calver's propensity to threaten anyone who opposes or upsets him with legal action which, however unlikely to be carried through or succeed, does deterred some people. (Does this sound familiar to you Mr Editor?).

Interesting one this! If what you have to say is true and factually correct (but it cannot possibly be, because you are only a mouthpiece..) then you have nothing to fear. You continue to hide behind anonymity because you are yellow.

It is somewhat of a pity that I am not 100% sure of your identity, because I would most certainly like to reward you for all the entertainment that you have provided since March. Having another village idiot has proved such fun.