Comment posted Emergence of Kintyre and Gigha Marketing Group completes Argyll and the Isles jigsaw by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll.
I accept you are annoyed with newsroom’s approach to this however it is worth remembering that your response to a post by Mike Story (which was nothing more than a pleasant comment about Kintyre )was to accuse him of prejudice, his antics as ‘disgusting’, and described him as ‘misled.’ You go on to tell him he has ‘no idea’, said his methods and job are a ‘waste of time.’
You also classify his, and AISTP’s approach to business as lazy, unresponsive and selective and also say it is ignorance and that his understanding of technology has killed Argyll’s future. You further this by calling his/their brands and funding mechanism as ‘laughable.’
This is followed by a paragraph that suggests he, and AISTP are responsible for people turning to drink and drugs as they take too long to help with local employment, tourism and social problems.
It then degenerates further when you say ‘perhaps Mr Story fancies himself as the new First Minister, or perhaps hes all going to get us cheap wives from abroad from his Thai business, who knows….’
Having thrown all that at Mike Story (who I admit I don’t know from Adam) I find it a little hard to have much sympathy when you claim to have been insulted and had your contribution belittled.
You clearly have a lot to say on the matter and maybe if it had been expressed with a little less vitriol then it would have been more engaging. However the level of personal insults you dished out (as detailed above) makes it very difficult to engage in a rational debate.
Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll also commented
First off I can assure you it is genuine. I have no connection with AISTP not have I ever met anyone who is connected with the (not that I know of anyway). This is why my interest is not in the personalities but in the nature of the business approach.
I was specifically interested in hearing why you think they have a selective membership and anti-competitive principles. Based on your response to this question (I am trying to avoid reading between the lines in other posts as I don’t wish to get the wrong end of the stick) it would appear this stems from a dissatisfaction in AISTP employing firms who are not Argyll based to offer advice on marketing within Argyll. Is this the case? If so then the complaint boils down to AISTP’s policy on appointing consultants and the policy they follow. If AISTP are deliberately excluding local firms then you clearly have grounds for complaint. Equally though they would not be allowed to exclude non local firms purely on the grounds of encouraging local firms. They could apply a weighting to a procurement scoring exercise which would assist local firms but this couldn’t be so high as to skew the process excessively and they would need to have clear justification for it should it be challenged. Ultimately the work will be awarded to the organisation that provides best overall value for money with that not necessarily meaning the cheapest.
Whether they attract funding for ‘flawed marketing’ is obviously a matter of opinion. I am in no position to challenge their, or your approach to marketing.
I personally don’t believe that third sector organisations are making a society reliant on grant money. I would accept that it would be easy to find examples of where this does seem to be the case but it would also be easy to find examples where the services and experience available from the third sector organisations are being tapped into with a genuine desire to deliver something with long term sustainability at the heart of its objective.
This, of course, doesn’t guarantee success, much the same way employing private sector expertise doesn’t guarantee success and there is a degree of duty on the third sector organisation to carry out appropriate due diligence before committing public resource to projects. If AISTP are a body who fund Argyll based projects I would expect them to have proper governance in place to manage that award process and I also appreciate they will be restricted by the size of the ‘pot’ available.
I can also understand why private firms might feel that the provision of public grants might be anti competitive as they feel that this money is then being spent on firms which are maybe not local or on an ‘approved list.’ This is why there needs to be clear segregation between the funding body and the award of contracts. I mean all this in a general sense rather than specifically to the issue under discussion here.
- For me there is a genuinely interesting topic here which is being buried by unfortunate ill feeling.
I would like to get beyond that and get back to the more important topic.
I know very little about AISTP so would be interested in hearing why Nick feels they, as a group, have a selective membership and also anti-competitive principles. It is clearly a matter which he feels strongly about and whether or not people agree he has a right to express that view (and also be challenged on it).
I am not interested in individual people being named but more why Nick, as a whole, feels the body, its aims/objectives and way it does business is as abhorrent as he is presenting them as being.
- Fair enough Nick. We shall agree to disagree. I feel your comments aimed at Mr Story were excessive and drifted comfortably into the arena of being personal.
I have to say that after reading a fair number of posts you have made I am still struggling to actually get a clear picture of the message you are trying to present. Maybe I am just being simple and failing to see your point however what does seem to shine through is a consistent attack at groups who don’t do things they way you think they should be done, or who employ people who you don’t feel have the same marketing credentials as you award yourself.
It doesn’t strike me as a particularly effective way to market yourself which surely places doubt in people’s minds about employing you to market them.
Recent comments by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll
- Sneddon runs white flag to half mast on council deception of parliamentary Education Committee
Aargh that magical Sneddon time rubber!
Not the first time he has airbrushed history to cover this tracks. Anyone remember when Keir Bloomer was suddenly removed from his role in the school closure proposal – strangely enough just after his role in the entire process was clearly shown to be totally lacking in the independence the council claimed he had.
Sneddon was challenged then to explain why he had been deemed surplus to requirements. His response (sent to an elected member by e-mail on 16 December 2010) was
“Mr Bloomer was engaged to provide an input to the informal consultation only and was therefore involved in the process that recommended that the school estate be reviewed. To ensure there would be no allegations of partiality in the subsequent statutory consultation we are looking to appoint someone unconnected with the earlier exercise. There is no inference to be drawn from this approach regarding Mr Bloomer’s credentials which are of a national standing.”
This response might have had a degree of credibility if it were not for the fact that in Annex 2 of the ‘Review of School Estate’ papers submitted to full Council on 2 November 2010 the same Executive Director of Community Services recommended that Members:
“Agree to delegate power to the Executive Director of Community Services and the Head of Education to procure the services of Mr Keir Bloomer as an Education Consultant to support the statutory consultation process in accordance with the accompanying report, Review of the School Estate – Consultation Process .”
Somewhere between 2 November 2010 and 16 December 2010 Cleland Sneddon appeared to have erased his desire to procure the services of Keir Bloomer to support the consultation process and replaced it with a desire to avoid ‘allegations of partiality.’
Leopard, spots and all that.
- Mandela an exemplar for redemptive spiritual largeness
I agree entirely and it echoes the point I made above. Around 7.1 million people in the ‘Central Powers’ died during WW1 – Does that make Asquith, Lloyd George and Wilson terrorists?
Estimates are that between 7 and 9 million Germans died in WW2 – does that make Churchill and Roosevelt terrorists?
Certainly not in my mind and I fail to see the difference between Mandela and these leaders.
If the answer is that the difference is that nobody officially ‘declared war’ then that is a ridiculously tenuous line between ‘terrorist’ and ‘war hero’ – this was a war in South Africa as much as any other war is one.
- Mandela an exemplar for redemptive spiritual largeness
I am fully aware of that Karl (that was exactly why I used Suharto to highlight the irony thing – or maybe it should be hypocrisy).
I have no problem with highlighting the ‘bad points’ – it would be ridiculous to deny them and paint Mandela as if he was the Archangel Gabriel his whole life – he clearly wasn’t nor does he claim to have been.
What I think though is that when you consider his actions (both before and after imprisonment) they need to be properly considered within the context of the political environment.
The ANC took money from Suharto (and others) to fund a fight against an evil government – Thatcher took money from Suharto….well just to get money.
- Mandela an exemplar for redemptive spiritual largeness
Far too simplistic is being very generous. It is certainly true that Mandela wasn’t opposed to using violence when he felt other avenues had been exhausted or were clearly never going to make any inroads against one of the most hideous regimes of modern times. He has often expressed a strong preference for peaceful methods but he never fully bought into the entirely peaceful methods more associated with the likes of Martin Luther King – he once said aid that non-violence is a good policy if conditions permit however the period of apartheid in South Africa was ruled over by one of the most odious and oppressive governments the world will ever be unfortunate to know.
For many many years the ANC was a non-violent organisation and only moved toward more violent methods when it became apparent that things were just getting worse rather than better. This wasn’t terrorism, it was civil war brought about by tyranny and unadulterated evil. If the likes of Churchill and William Wallace are held up as historic heroes for their battles against an odious regime then Mandela deserves the same accolade. The US took years to take him off the terrorist list yet they rejoice the name of George Washington. It is total hypocrisy – and let’s not forget Guantanomo Bay detention camp is still open for business.
It, of course shouldn’t escape the ‘irony meter’ that he was classified as a terrorist (and more specifically a ‘black terrorist’ by members of Thatcher’s Government – the same Govt who sold £500m of weapons to Suharto which allowed him slaughter the people of East Timor. Whilst I welcome the various tributes being paid to Mandela by politicians of all parties I feel David Cameron missed an opportunity to include an apology on behalf of the members of his party who took umpteen opportunities to disgrace Mandela during the Thatcher years.
I realise there are people who think that violence is never the answer and ideally that would be a great philosophy to live by but is it really realistic when the ‘enemy’ is so bloody evil that those committed to non-violence see their communities constantly at fear of attack, mutilation and every ounce of self-esteem bled from them by a Government who treats them as human vermin. Of course there are a few examples but they are very much the exception rather than the rule and I don’t think people who will never in their lives have to experience the sort of tyranny that the black people of South Africa did are in much of a position to throw the terrorist accusation around.
- Argyll and Bute Council seriously misleads Holyrood Education Committee
I read the submission about a week or so ago. An astounding airbrushing of history. This is quite clearly not an issue of semantics. It is an embarrassing attempt to paint the council in a better light than their actions merit.
Just further evidence that Cllr Walsh’s claims that the recent statutory report had hard messages which had to be addressed (or words to that effect) was nothing more than empty words. Nothing has changed in the culture of the council.
powered by SEO Super Comments