zetlander60

Ghosty, The post you refer to is one isolated incident and you can't justify your bizarre attitude on the basis of that. I'm wholly unconvinced that there are many others with such an attitude, or is there some form of secret club, given that you appear to have a list of its members available to email? The whole sorry debate has been turned into a predjudiced rant and I don't intend taking any further part in it.

For the benefit of anyone who may not be familiar with Shetland, can I assure you that the more extreme views and attitudes being expressed by the minority on this and other threads on Shetlink are just that - the minority! For the most part Shetlanders are hospitable, reasonable people and there is very little chance of being physically abused or accosted with a shotgun or other deadly weapon whilst gong about your normal business or pleasure! Ghosty, if you insist on digging this particular hole any deeper we may not be able to get you out of it!

Shoogler - couldn't agree more! Ghosty and Unlinked student really must get a grip! They create non-existent problems, then offer unsolicited advice and in this case have reduced what could have been a friendly conversation based on the original question to a complete farce. The original question didn't to my mind suggest anything of the sort that they've read into it. Shetland and Shetlanders didn't use to be like this.

There's a guy on classified ads trying to buy a rowing boat to do a bit of summer fishing. He hasn't made it clear in his ad what his boating experience is and worse still hasn't let us know if he has a lifejacket, gps or VHF. Shouldn't Ghosty/unlinked student advise him that this really isn't on?

If what Billy Fox sets out in his recent letter to Shetland News, see below, is correct with regard to the way in which a possibly significant agreement has been entered into by a minority of the Charitable Trust trustees without discussion at a properly constituted Trust meeting , it would indicate that the trustees appear not to have listened to any of the recent criticism of the way the Trust is being operated. Surely a full explanation of this is called for? It the events described did take place as set out, it is not sufficient for the signatories to contend that there is no financial element. We've seen too many cases where Trustees/Councillors have at the time of taking a decision "understood" one thing and then found out later that there had been a misunderstanding. Letter to Shetland News dated 14th January With reference to the recent letter ‘End of democratic control SN 13/01/12’ I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments and the concerns of retaining democratic control of the Shetland Charitable Trust. However, when it comes to democracy and transparency there is also a need to examine just how compliant the current trust has been recently. I refer in this instance to the recent Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Shetland Islands Council, Shetland Charitable Trust and Vattenfall, namely to investigate marine renewables. The agreement was signed for the SIC under delegated authority by the Director of Development Services, and for the SCT by chairman Bill Manson, vice-chair Jim Henry, and trustee Gussie Angus. It never appeared on any SCT agenda and was never discussed by the full board of trustees. I emailed the 22 trustees at that time 18/11/11, enquiring if they knew of the agreement and if it had been discussed with them. Only six responded - two who knew of it, being signatories, and of course did not have a problem with it, and four who did not know of the agreement until it was announced at the Dynamic Shetland conference on 16/11/11. Of these four, two did not have an issue with it but two did have genuine concerns. Whatever the situation and opinions with the remaining sixteen trustees I have no idea. I find it unbelievable that an agreement with a global utility company such as Vattenfall was not discussed by all trustees. My disbelief is compounded as the Development Committee meeting on 09/11/11 where the agreement took place was followed the next day by a meeting of the SCT. It follows therefore that a number of councillors, as Development Committee members, knew of the agreement, but presumably did not impart that knowledge to their fellow trustees when they sat down wearing their SCT hats the very next day! The significant commitment of this agreement is being minimised by the SCT signatories’ contention that there is no financial element; this is questionable. Reading the detail of the MoU, which I have obtained through a Freedom of Information request, this agreement is only the beginning! There are a considerable number of councillor/trustees who are principled hardworking members but who are being tarred with the actions of a few, I sincerely hope in the absence of questions being asked in public that a great deal is being asked behind closed doors. If trustees are asking for democracy in future governance, which is essential, there is an urgent need for this to be currently demonstrated. Billy Fox Brennek Quarff

I've got it now! If PeerieBryan can satifactorily answer these four basic questions then he can have Christmas and New Year off?

Well, finally we're getting somewhere. This answers a few questions, but not all by a long shot. There are no details whatsoever relating to the cinema, and a quick glance also appears to suggest that while a "kitchen store" is readily noticable, there is no sign of a "kitchen" for it to serve......Guess I need to look harder. Notwithstanding that, is it really appropriate that you have to go on to an allegedly unconnected organisation's site to access such basic information?!? Its not exactly the easiest found either, unless you know it is still on there and how to go about finding it. Its non-date searchable, as everything on the site appears to have been re-dated for two months ago. The search doesn't bring it up under "Mareel", or "music" or "venue" either, "cinema" was the only one I tried that did. I shall return....presently. Ghosty, I really don't get it! These plans were prepared for the purposes of a planning application. That's why they're on the planning website. They weren't produced to answer every question that might conceivably be asked by anyone and then deliberately hidden away where they might not be found! Do you really NEED to know everything about every building that's partly publicly funded - or is it just Mareel? I suspect from a brief scan over this discussion that the more information you're given, the more questions you'll have and that you'll never reach a point at which you're satisfied.

I can almost understand why the Dave Clark forum has been closed again, but would suggest that Shetlink is being over-sensitive. It may of course be that the day-jobs of the moderators result in monetary return from SIC - in common with an unhealthy proportion of the Shetland electorate. How many of the moderators and Clark defenders would be willing to confirm that they are substantially financially independent of SIC?

Can you point us in the direction of any significant action taken by Mr Clark since he arrived which indicates that he is likely to integrate and become a useful member of society here? I agree that he has made mistakes - many are already apparent and I suspect a number more will become apparent as the enquiry proceeds. The Council has also clearly made mistakes. The effect of all of these mistakes is that, yet again, public funds have been drawn on to paper over the cracks. Some of the cracks had already been papered over using very expensive wallpaper and this cannot continue. For this reason, "it" is not "done and over" and it would be foolish to pretend that it was. I am all for letting Mr Clark redbuild his life, but not using public money which could have been better employed elsewhere and not before uncovering why we continually find ourselves in this situation and taking positive steps to prevent a recurrence. The idea that the job is an impossible one is a wholly negative suggestion and the suggestion that the Shetland public are worse than the devil to deal with is offensive. Let's find out where it all went wrong, accept sincere apologies from the guilty parties and then move forwards. Burying problems is not the solution.

Brian? Strangely quiet .. 2nd thoughts?

I am not sure that there is actually much new information here, smply that there is now formal confirmation of information which has been partly in the public domain for some time. It is clear that there has been significant mis-handling of many aspects of Mr Clark's appointment, term in office and departure. What is not clear is why none of the perpetrators appear to have given any consideration to offering an apology for their part in the fiasco which continues to run. This will not simply "go away" and anyone who thinks it will is deluded.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2924056/Council-cash-row-rat-David-Clark-escapes-to-holiday-isle.html?print=yes

How do people feel about the refusal by SIC to disclose information regarding Dave Clark's payout?

I truly am at a loss to understand where Brian is coming from with his one-liners! Doesn't he believe that people are entitled to hold and express their own opinions? It appears to me that a signifiant proportion of Shetlanders feel that there is something seriously wrong with the way that this has been handled and are looking for answers. What precisely does Brian think we should do? Put it down to experience and hope that lessons will be learnt? How can we learn lessons if we don't know what went wrong?

Tere are so many unanswered questions, illogical actions on the part of the Council, inconsistencies in statements being made and hard facts emerging which demand addressing, that until the Council come clean with THIER electorate, it is inconceivable that any kind of line can be drawn under this sorry affair. It is pure nonsense to suggest that Dave Clark was prevented from doing his job by the exposure he had in the National press. That was a by-product of the Council's earlier failure to deal with the situation. The Sun and other national newspapers only started to show a serious interest in the affair when it was already long overdue for action and explanations. Unless the Council acts swiftly and decisively to explain fully what lead up to the monumentally wrong decision they appear to have taken, this problem has the potential to tear the community apart. I live in hope that there is a Plan B, the main part of which is that Dave Clark departs with the statutory minimum payment and what he deserves for the way he contributed to the situation we now find ourselves in.