This is very strange. I wonder if I can someone to present the petition in the Legislature.
Yes, we do have a China style of Government in New Brunswick!!
Very strange indeed.....
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Of course they won't because you are a pest and you harass them. I know about your behavior in the cafeteria of the Legislature and how you would yell and talk loud and demand everything.
Yes I also know people who work in the Legislature and everybody told me the same story.
I know you will not post this comment but I also would not sign that petition because I agree 100% with your ban. So since I don't agree with you you won't post my comment because you don't post comments that don't support your cause.
It was stated many weeks ago when you first touted your petition that MLA'S do not sign these things. Was that in fact the case? Surely a man as in tune with government policy as yourself must know. I can only assume that it must be the case. After all if it was not surely at least your friend Abel would have signed. So, if that is correct surely four !!!! marks are a bit much. It really is nothing surprising at all is it.
Charlie, you don't seem to understand that many of these people work in the Legislature and they don't want you in there harrassing them. That's the reason they won't sign your petition - neither would I. You have to learn how to respect people before you can expect it from others. Send a letter of apology to the clerk of the Legislature apologizing for your behaviour and they might consider your request but as long as you deny that you harrassed staff in the legislature, chances are you won't get back - regardless of who the Premier is. You can take as many pictures as you want and make as many threatening noises as you want, but all you're doing is convincing the political masters at the Legislature that you shouldn't be there. Not the best way to win a battle Charlie.
I did not apologize and I will not either. No I am not talking about a fight between Milt Sherwood and Stuart Jamieson, I am talking about you going in the cafeteria walking up to Ministers and MLAs and demanding things and when their assistants told you that they are eating lunch and this is not the time or place you would yell back at them tell them to bug off and that you were not talking to them and that you were talking to the MLA or Minister. You would act the same way with Legislative staff when they would tell you that you were not allowed to go into certain areas and then you would turn around and tell them rudely that this is the peoples house and that you are allowed to go were ever you want.
Oh yes Charles I know the real reason for your ban, it is your behavior. You did the same with the president of the Union Association, hey look it up on your blog you blogged it this past winter. When he did not acknowledge you when he walked out the Crown Plaza Hotel you yelled at him and talked rude to him down the street. And then when he was tired of listening to you yell out obscenities he stopped and talked to you and then all of a sudden he is a nice guy.
Hey I am not making this up, you blogged it this winter. Hey look at the comments that you leave to your readers. At times you are rude to people, you call everybody in Fredericton that wears a suite a Bureaucrat and you don't know that for sure, plus they are civil servants not bureaucrats. Taking pictures of people walking minding their own business and calling them stupid or other rude things. Going to the market and calling people that wait in line for samosas, which is their choice, idiots.
Hey you do it all the time and you don't even notice. Hey readers he got banned from the legislature and the NB Police Association is ignoring him because he is rude and demanding.
People here are putting the cart before the horse. To CJ, I don't know why you'd expect Charles to listen to you when you show the exact same kind of disrespect to him that you say he showed to bureaucrats. Maybe if you showed Charles some respect, he might actually listen to you more than you deserve.
Let's pretend that Charles is lying, that in fact he was as belligerent as CJ says. All that shows is that the Charles is only marginally worse behaved than a good many MLA's, and not nearly as bad as some of them are.
If Charles was so disruptive, then that's something that should be brought out in a public forum. Witnesses should testify, even if its anonomously. Many wouldn't want to testify because then Charles 'would blog them'. Thats understandable, but there are ways around that besides having eight guys sit in a room passing judgements with no public information given.
Like Charles says, that does sound like China, but lets not get too carried away with analogies. Charles has it a hell of a lot better than chinese dissidents.
Another person banned from the legislature was David Amos. I've heard that he was yelling from the gallery. They say you can't have that, that shows 'disrespect'. Have people EVER watched their legislature? That is virtually all these people do for hours at a time.
How about the clown. A guy wears a clown face to the legislature, and is banned. Again, go WATCH the legislature sometime, there are days when the word 'circus' would not be a hyperbole.
So even if Charles were ranting and raving, that doesn't give people the grounds to ban them arbitrarily in a closed session.
As for Charles antics, go look through the blog and he clearly fesses up to mistakes he makes, when people don't talk to him like *&^holes.
Sometimes he's rude, so would you be if you had to read through posts like these.
I disagree with many of Charles tactics, but thats his choice. What posters here fail to do is give Charles any options. Telling him to apologize to the clerk for being disruptive is a joke...the clerk can't do anything.
My guess is that the reason he hasn't been re-admitted is a political one. If I were in their shoes I'd do the exact same thing. Charles is stubborn and proud, and that means he's predictable. By banning him, it keeps his energy focussed on himself, which also costs him public support in the middle class, which are the voters.
When the Residential Tenants Act was going on, there were hardly any nasty comments here. He and Tim Smith were engaged in the political process, and it was having a big political effect. That was shown with Lord putting the RTA in the throne speech, and Doherty presenting the bill on his first day.
ANd this was with NO media attention from anybody. CBC was on strike, and Irving mentioned it in passing in one article during the entire by-election.
That is significant power. Thats the kind of power that Irving wields, and they do it because they have so many resources. So Charles had to be politically neutralized, and thats what this has done. Of course its not JUST that, after all, six people have been banned. But this is what happened, and if Charles gets into the legislature then the politicians know that he may do like before, and actually talk about issues. Nowadays, Spinks blog is the only place where political issues are discussed.
So its easy to sit on the sidelines and gripe at Charles. Some people like to do that so that they don't feel guilty about robbing people of their rights. By saying 'they deserve it' it makes it easier to think of living in a state where such things are happening.
For Charles though, not all those comments are completely 'nasty'. You have lost public support in a very big way, and without that you have nothing, thats something to think about whenever you are flippantly calling people bureaucrats or taking peoples picture without asking.
Anonymous 11:32 - I agree with you to a point, but our point of departure is when you say, “What posters here fail to do is give Charles any options.” Au contraire, I think a number of people, including myself, have tried a number of times to get Charlie to see a different perspective on things. The “option” he has been offered by many people is to make a change in his behaviour so that people don’t see him as being harassing.
The best example, if you want one, is to read his account of his encounter with Tom Mann a few weeks ago. I’m not sure if I had someone hollering in my ear about not talking to the poor that I’d have much time for him – as a matter of fact, I would seriously question his mental health. The fact that Mann stopped and spent some time talking with Charlie and then later is described by Charlie as a “nice guy” after months of vilification is more than ample evidence that all Charlie wants is attention – once he gets it, he’s pacified.
One of the lessons that most of us learned a long time ago is that you can whine, pout and complain for awhile and finally your parents or your siblings are going to tell you to clam up and you realize that it’s the best course of action. It’s called maturity. That doesn’t seem to be the case here.
This blog has the potential to do a lot of good for the poor and disadvantaged, but as long as it’s an ego exercise for Charlie, it will continue to be a form of entertainment that some will visit to see the pictures and no one will take very seriously.
CHanging his behaviour is not an 'option'. Telling somebody to 'shut up and live with it' isn't an option.
When Charles first was banned he made it public, and people could have contacted their MLA, they could have raised their voice. WHen I say 'option', I don't mean telling Charles what to do, I mean standing up for Charles.
I don't think thats a definition of maturity. It depends what exactly the child is having a tantrum about. If its nothing of consequence, then you are right. If, however, his brothers and sisters are beating him up and he is crying, that's hardly maturity to 'just clam up'. In fact its a sign of maturity to stand up and be a man. Charles has more guts than just about every poster here.
The Tom Mann situation showed that Charles was perfectly right in what he was doing. If Tom Mann is going to support banning people from the people's house then he should at least have the balls to face that person. Too many people in our society say 'oh well' and just move on.
If Charles had some help and support then perhaps he'd be more moderate. Griping at him from the sidelines isn't going to help though.
10 comments:
Of course they won't because you are a pest and you harass them. I know about your behavior in the cafeteria of the Legislature and how you would yell and talk loud and demand everything.
Yes I also know people who work in the Legislature and everybody told me the same story.
I know you will not post this comment but I also would not sign that petition because I agree 100% with your ban. So since I don't agree with you you won't post my comment because you don't post comments that don't support your cause.
That wasn't moi.
You must mean that almost close fist fight between Milt Sherwood and Stuart Jamieson?
I accept your apology!!!!
It was stated many weeks ago when you first touted your petition that MLA'S do not sign these things. Was that in fact the case? Surely a man as in tune with government policy as yourself must know.
I can only assume that it must be the case. After all if it was not surely at least your friend Abel would have signed. So, if that is correct surely four !!!! marks are a bit much. It really is nothing surprising at all is it.
Charlie, you don't seem to understand that many of these people work in the Legislature and they don't want you in there harrassing them. That's the reason they won't sign your petition - neither would I. You have to learn how to respect people before you can expect it from others. Send a letter of apology to the clerk of the Legislature apologizing for your behaviour and they might consider your request but as long as you deny that you harrassed staff in the legislature, chances are you won't get back - regardless of who the Premier is. You can take as many pictures as you want and make as many threatening noises as you want, but all you're doing is convincing the political masters at the Legislature that you shouldn't be there. Not the best way to win a battle Charlie.
I did not apologize and I will not either. No I am not talking about a fight between Milt Sherwood and Stuart Jamieson, I am talking about you going in the cafeteria walking up to Ministers and MLAs and demanding things and when their assistants told you that they are eating lunch and this is not the time or place you would yell back at them tell them to bug off and that you were not talking to them and that you were talking to the MLA or Minister. You would act the same way with Legislative staff when they would tell you that you were not allowed to go into certain areas and then you would turn around and tell them rudely that this is the peoples house and that you are allowed to go were ever you want.
Oh yes Charles I know the real reason for your ban, it is your behavior. You did the same with the president of the Union Association, hey look it up on your blog you blogged it this past winter. When he did not acknowledge you when he walked out the Crown Plaza Hotel you yelled at him and talked rude to him down the street. And then when he was tired of listening to you yell out obscenities he stopped and talked to you and then all of a sudden he is a nice guy.
Hey I am not making this up, you blogged it this winter. Hey look at the comments that you leave to your readers. At times you are rude to people, you call everybody in Fredericton that wears a suite a Bureaucrat and you don't know that for sure, plus they are civil servants not bureaucrats. Taking pictures of people walking minding their own business and calling them stupid or other rude things. Going to the market and calling people that wait in line for samosas, which is their choice, idiots.
Hey you do it all the time and you don't even notice. Hey readers he got banned from the legislature and the NB Police Association is ignoring him because he is rude and demanding.
The comments are really bad tonight.
Apologize? Sure!!!
Only one problemo??? I don't know who I should apologixe to?
Dan Bussieres has evicted 6 people for life and this has never been seen before.
I learned today that his staff < Quebec Security Staff > an former R.C.M.P. assaulted a New Brunswicker at the Leg.
Thinks are getting out of hand.
I never bothered anyway in the Cafeteria. These are all lies.
As I blogged since I got banned? I don't know the reasons.
I know one reason that was giving to me by Kelly Lamrock.
I haven't gone public with this issue yet. < It's dirty >
I also learned that bureaucrats are working overtime to have me charge and I'm looking forward to it.
Freedom must remain alive in New Brunswick.
This is quickly turning into a China system...
People here are putting the cart before the horse. To CJ, I don't know why you'd expect Charles to listen to you when you show the exact same kind of disrespect to him that you say he showed to bureaucrats. Maybe if you showed Charles some respect, he might actually listen to you more than you deserve.
Let's pretend that Charles is lying, that in fact he was as belligerent as CJ says. All that shows is that the Charles is only marginally worse behaved than a good many MLA's, and not nearly as bad as some of them are.
If Charles was so disruptive, then that's something that should be brought out in a public forum. Witnesses should testify, even if its anonomously. Many wouldn't want to testify because then Charles 'would blog them'. Thats understandable, but there are ways around that besides having eight guys sit in a room passing judgements with no public information given.
Like Charles says, that does sound like China, but lets not get too carried away with analogies. Charles has it a hell of a lot better than chinese dissidents.
Another person banned from the legislature was David Amos. I've heard that he was yelling from the gallery. They say you can't have that, that shows 'disrespect'. Have people EVER watched their legislature? That is virtually all these people do for hours at a time.
How about the clown. A guy wears a clown face to the legislature, and is banned. Again, go WATCH the legislature sometime, there are days when the word 'circus' would not be a hyperbole.
So even if Charles were ranting and raving, that doesn't give people the grounds to ban them arbitrarily in a closed session.
As for Charles antics, go look through the blog and he clearly fesses up to mistakes he makes, when people don't talk to him like *&^holes.
Sometimes he's rude, so would you be if you had to read through posts like these.
I disagree with many of Charles tactics, but thats his choice. What posters here fail to do is give Charles any options. Telling him to apologize to the clerk for being disruptive is a joke...the clerk can't do anything.
My guess is that the reason he hasn't been re-admitted is a political one. If I were in their shoes I'd do the exact same thing. Charles is stubborn and proud, and that means he's predictable. By banning him, it keeps his energy focussed on himself, which also costs him public support in the middle class, which are the voters.
When the Residential Tenants Act was going on, there were hardly any nasty comments here. He and Tim Smith were engaged in the political process, and it was having a big political effect. That was shown with Lord putting the RTA in the throne speech, and Doherty presenting the bill on his first day.
ANd this was with NO media attention from anybody. CBC was on strike, and Irving mentioned it in passing in one article during the entire by-election.
That is significant power. Thats the kind of power that Irving wields, and they do it because they have so many resources. So Charles had to be politically neutralized, and thats what this has done. Of course its not JUST that, after all, six people have been banned. But this is what happened, and if Charles gets into the legislature then the politicians know that he may do like before, and actually talk about issues. Nowadays, Spinks blog is the only place where political issues are discussed.
So its easy to sit on the sidelines and gripe at Charles. Some people like to do that so that they don't feel guilty about robbing people of their rights. By saying 'they deserve it' it makes it easier to think of living in a state where such things are happening.
For Charles though, not all those comments are completely 'nasty'. You have lost public support in a very big way, and without that you have nothing, thats something to think about whenever you are flippantly calling people bureaucrats or taking peoples picture without asking.
Anonymous 11:32 - I agree with you to a point, but our point of departure is when you say, “What posters here fail to do is give Charles any options.” Au contraire, I think a number of people, including myself, have tried a number of times to get Charlie to see a different perspective on things. The “option” he has been offered by many people is to make a change in his behaviour so that people don’t see him as being harassing.
The best example, if you want one, is to read his account of his encounter with Tom Mann a few weeks ago. I’m not sure if I had someone hollering in my ear about not talking to the poor that I’d have much time for him – as a matter of fact, I would seriously question his mental health. The fact that Mann stopped and spent some time talking with Charlie and then later is described by Charlie as a “nice guy” after months of vilification is more than ample evidence that all Charlie wants is attention – once he gets it, he’s pacified.
One of the lessons that most of us learned a long time ago is that you can whine, pout and complain for awhile and finally your parents or your siblings are going to tell you to clam up and you realize that it’s the best course of action. It’s called maturity. That doesn’t seem to be the case here.
This blog has the potential to do a lot of good for the poor and disadvantaged, but as long as it’s an ego exercise for Charlie, it will continue to be a form of entertainment that some will visit to see the pictures and no one will take very seriously.
Fred
Lets get one thing straight right now!!!!
After Tom Mann wrote that letter to the editor.
I showed up at the Union building.
Just go to search this blog and write- Tom Mann.
I asked over and over for a meeting with the Union leader but David Brown refuse.
So therefore, I blogged the guy to death.
Now? Just for the record? Everyone told me he was a nice guy but I didn’t believe it.
Go to the UNB blog. You will see his picture in there.
I approached him and shook his hand. He told me that he should have talked to me when I first asks for a meeting.
So? Asking for a meeting didn’t work!
Once I came face to face with the guy? He walked by me so I raised my voice.
Don’t forget one issue here!
He’s the one who wrote that letter to the Irving’s papers praising the ban from the Legislature so therefore he started.
Guess what?
He is a nice guy!
If I asked for a meeting and it doesn’t work?
Yes, I will raise my voice in public.
In my view? There’s nothing wrong with that action.
Tom Mann was in a safe enviornment. He was surrounded by close to 50 Union members but that didn’t scare this little blogger.
I will continue to fight for what I believe is wrong!
If I got to raise my voice? Then so be it!!!!
CHanging his behaviour is not an 'option'. Telling somebody to 'shut up and live with it' isn't an option.
When Charles first was banned he made it public, and people could have contacted their MLA, they could have raised their voice. WHen I say 'option', I don't mean telling Charles what to do, I mean standing up for Charles.
I don't think thats a definition of maturity. It depends what exactly the child is having a tantrum about. If its nothing of consequence, then you are right. If, however, his brothers and sisters are beating him up and he is crying, that's hardly maturity to 'just clam up'. In fact its a sign of maturity to stand up and be a man. Charles has more guts than just about every poster here.
The Tom Mann situation showed that Charles was perfectly right in what he was doing. If Tom Mann is going to support banning people from the people's house then he should at least have the balls to face that person. Too many people in our society say 'oh well' and just move on.
If Charles had some help and support then perhaps he'd be more moderate. Griping at him from the sidelines isn't going to help though.
Post a Comment