thebfg

I'm going to suggest something crazy here that the council would probably never even think of doing. This first assumes that the council has found there to be a need to reduce the speed of vehicles along the esplanade (which I'm not sure there is).
 
Instead of installing all of the speed bumps and raised islands, why don't they simply stick up some signs saying ‘20’. Some drivers, myself included, would slow their speed a little bit and this might have the desired effect without pulverising everyone’s lumbar region.
 
It would also be a lot cheaper and with significantly less disruption than doing heavy work to the road.
 
They could always review it again after a year or two and see whether it has actually had the desired impact, and then if they have to they could put their beloved speed bumps in.

If you need to lie, cheat and smear to win your seat ( the judges ruled Alistair did this ) then good luck to him.
I find the gloating amusing, why would Alistair Carmichaels opponents be upset to be up against a proven liar and his apologists?
I hope there are many more like me who would like someone with honesty, integrity and honour representing me.

There's a time and a place for everything IMO.
 
Using the more choice sweary words in public is impolite to say the least. It shows a completely arrogant lack of consideration for those around you*. You wanna swear? Crack on, but I shouldn't have to listen to it if I don't want to.
 
Like I said, I'll eff and blind in the company of those of my friends who are not bothered by it, yet I would never, ever speak like that if i was in a larger social group - say in a restaurant or on a bus.
 
Regarding the online/in print aspect, it's not 'censorship', it's a question of what is worth reporting and what isn't. Just trawling out swear words and putting it into the public domain under the banner of journalism doesn't really wash with me. It just smacks of lazy space filling. And the old line of "don't read it then" is somewhat jaded to say the least.
I know people swear, but that doesn't mean I want it stuffing in my face every time I go to read the paper. The same as I know people die in car crashes, but I don't need pictures of bloodstained car wreckage to tell me what a car crash looks line etc, etc, etc. 
 
*On a flight from Aberdeen to Brum last year, one 'gentleman' was told in no uncertain terms by the cabin crew if he didn't stop f-ing and c-ing all the time, he'd be hoofed off and arrested. I don't recall anyone on the flight rushing to defend the loudmouth at all. In fact I reckon he was lucky not to get a knuckle sarnie from a couple of blokes sat in front of me with their kids. 

this is getting beyond farcical. i would have replied to all the absurdity but didn't fancy sitting typing for 3 days only to be met with more of the same. and this was more fun.
 
*any resemblance to persons etc...
 
 
S]  do you want eggs?
 
G]  far more relevant i'd have thought would be the farm the "chicken" was raised on, if indeed it was a chicken. 
 
S]  indeed. and i wonder if this "chicken" has council affiliations...
 
G]  that may well be so, but as usual the real issue here is being avoided by those public school establishment figures in their ivory towers making stupid unqualified decisions about poultry they clearly know nothing about.
 
S]  yes G, you're right again. hypothetically you could ask that "chicken" a number of questions, to which i could provide entirely unsubstantiated answers which i think you will find will lend weight whatever point i think i'm making at this moment in time.
 
G]  perhaps that could be construed as such, however in my book, as i have said all along, this is really about who is having "bacon" and whether or not that "person" is cooking that "bacon" (assuming it is to be cooked and not eaten raw) uses a non-stick "pan", which in my book is at best highly questionable. 
 
S]  well, yes. still, at least bacon doesn't have any religious leanings...   
 
G]  probably not. though in my book the extent to which these alleged strips of dead pig can read, or indeed, comprehend the content of particular "religious" texts is irrelevant compared to the real problem which is about whether or not "bacon" (or indeed "chicken" if it so chose) is actually proven to be composed of strips of pig, a claim which i have not been convinced of, following the multiple reports in the "newspapers" which i don't read and the "television" which i don't watch.
 
S]  quite right! i never mentioned the fecking (cultural reference, it was funny 20 years ago, finger on the pulse) news reports!  
 
G]  whether or not one mentions anything neither proves nor disproves anything, and in my book any "disputes" arising from the absence of information is arguably no less significant than the perceived assumptions which preceded it, and indeed form the basis for my understanding of this "situation". i voted ukip incidentally.
 
S]  i can't tell if i'm blinking uncontrollably or having a fit.        
 
G]  personally speaking i see no reason to distinguish between the two, blinking can happen while fitting and vice versa, therefor it is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether a particular so-called "chicken" is part of an old boys network and proactively advertises its establishment credentials...
 
 
[G&S are found slumped over the table. eggs remain uncooked.]

So the SNP guy didn't mention his school, religion or ancestry in a leaflet.
I have to admit that 99.9% of election literature that falls on my doormat goes straight in the bin so I can't honestly comment on that.
I did read Tom Mortons letter in the Shetland Times before the election though, so this information (however relevant people find it) must have been easily accessible to someone with google or by anyone who read the Shetland Times.
What I can't understand is the bizarre logic that this so called crime is as bad, if not worse than Alistair Carmichael abusing his position as Secretary of State for Scotland in a crude smear attempt, lying on live television about having any knowledge of it and then owning up only after he'd been caught by an expensive parliamentary leaks inquiry which only came to light after winning his seat by a tiny number of votes.

Is the SIC Education Dept going to wriggle out of this?
 
http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/10200-sic-flouting-law-on-school-closures
 
Has anyone read the Shetland Times this week?
 
 

Your absolutely right MuckleJoannie, admin plays an important role in all industries and it covers many aspects of the day to day operation.
 
If £305k is the underspend, you have to wonder what the total costs of admin in the care sector are. The issue I have is that it looks like the council spend considerable amounts on admin and you have to question if the balance of admin and delivery are a bit skewed.
 
I would also question how the "admin" costs for a building still at the design stage is £305k

^ "Yes, son. We had music and arts venues, several leisure centres, old peoples homes, a museum and whatnot. Then we took a 45% share in this windfarm which got built, eventually. But it ran massively over schedule and budget because it was almost impossible to work on most of the site for more than 4 or 5 months each year, the additional costs were horrendous, not to mention the loan conditions meant we were having to find money to pay the lenders back for years before we produced any electricity. Anyhow, that bit wasn't so bad, really, we probably could just about have survived such a blow, but then there was the interconnector which we needed before we could sell any electricity to anybody, and somehow after a lot of argy bargy and delays we ended up having to take on a cut of the cost of that....not quite sure how that happened, but, you see, we had no choice really, without it we would have been bankrupt there and then, it was our only hope.
 
Somehow we managed to scrape together enough to make the interconnector happen, and it was all looking good, we really were on the way up. All the turbines were raring to go, and finally, even if it was many, many years late, the electricity was finally flowing in to the national grid and we were looking forward to our first big cheque.....and then, interest rates started to climb rapidly, and the Government, having to pay them too on their borrowings had to make cuts, so among others reduced the subsidies they paid for renewables, as by then everybody and his auntie had turbines they were claiming for, and the amount was really massive. Well, unfortunately when that happened we couldn't bring in enough any more to even cover the interest payments, and while the other partners got out quicker than you can say "burned fingers", we were so sure things could still be turned around that we hung in until the financiers sent in the Administrators who closed everything down, and the SCT was immediately would up by the Charity Commission. So now when you see all those old poles on tops of the hills, the large old tumble down sheds with abandoned swimming pools in them, and hear of so many oldies struggling to survive, you know the reason why.

Does it? Regardless of whose in charge at Westminster the divvy up of whatever money comes to Scotland/Shetland is down to the Scottish Government/SIC, and there's no guarantee that giving either of them more money will also give them the wit to spend it more wisely.
 
Maybe we need to look a bit closer to home to see how much of what is coming could be spent more effectively and productively, and sort out or own backyard first before we're in a credible position to dictate to the man down the road.