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
- SNP Chairs and Members of Westminster Committees
I don’t have a problem with someone of Mhairi Black’s age being elected. I don’t think it can do politics any harm whatsoever to have some elected members who can better represent the aspirations of a more youthful section of society. I would have concerns if there was an excessive number of younger of politicians say in their twenties but it is highly unlikely that will ever be the case.
Would she have been elected if the SNP were not on such an upswing nationally? Probably not but you could say that about a lot of the other SNP MPs elected (and also of a lot of Labour ones in the past when Labour were the dominant party in Scotland).
She was heavily criticised during the campaign for some of the remarks he made about drinking (was it alcopops?) but that never really bothered me. She was still a student and if there two things that tend to happen at university it is drinking and hangovers! I also think too much was made of her remarks about Celtic – it wasn’t sectarianism if I recall correctly – it was just a few choice words on twitter – what percentage of people in the world use that sort of language from time to time, especially in their youth!
The head-butt remark was stupid and I doubt she will make that mistake again. It was borne out of frustration and naivety and she didn’t help herself by going on about No voters being selfish and gullible. However there are plenty of more experienced politicians who have mad similar remarks about No voters – not to mention posters on here who seem to think being a No voter makes you less Scottish, a very childish position to take.
However I wouldn’t want to put young people off an interest in becoming a politician by their mistakes when they are in their late teens or early twenties being used as a club to beat them with.
I do think her position on the Work & Pensions Select Committee is odd and maybe ill advised. I think, there are other committees where an inexperienced politician and person (and I mean that purely in terms of her age, not as a statement on her potential ability) might be better placed initially.
- Motion sends Scottish Parliament’s condolences on death of Sir Nicholas Winton, the British Schindler
It is quite amazing that he never made his actions public – they were only discovered by chance by his wife about 25 years ago. A remarkable man. Very fitting and just that he got to live a very long and full life.
- SNP Chairs and Members of Westminster Committees
There is a chuckle to be allowed at the fact that Jim Murphy was regularly criticised by SNP supporters for being a career politician who had no experience of working and now we have an SNP MP with no experience of working sitting on the ‘Work & Pensions Committee!
No criticism of Mhairi Black intended and I hope she does a great job. Just highlighting yet another case of total hypocrisy amongst ardent political party supporters.
- SNP alerts infantry to prepare to hunt out Carmichael
I tend to agree with JB on this. Alastair Carmichael did wrong, of that there is no doubt. I personally think he should stand down (but there are a few other politicians in all parties who should have done the same in the past and haven’t). However I just don’t see how pushing for this court case is merited given the other much more important priorities in Scotland right now.
The crowd fund is sitting at round about £60k just now (which was the target) – if this goes to full trial then that isn’t going to touch the sides of the total bill – it would surprise me greatly if the total bill (for both sides added together) ended up being south of £300k. Where that money is going to come from I am don’t know. The Lib Dems are refusing to comment on whether they are picking up Alastair Carmichael’s bill, who is going to be picking up the ‘people’s final bill if it does go to a full and length trial?
Yes we want fair and honest politics and yes we are not getting it. We didn’t get it from Carmichael but we also don’t get it from Tories, Labour or the SNP (and you can add other parties to the list at will). There are liars and cheats in every party, some on ‘lesser’ issues, some on greater issues. Those pushing for this wearing their SNP badges, including the main petition leaders, are blinded by party loyalty and the stench of hypocrisy is quite foul. All parties need to clean their act up but the ‘outrage’ at this particular incident whilst whistling innocently with a ‘nothing to see here’ attitude to their own ‘houses’ is a bit pathetic.
- Council cuts teacher numbers – without consultation – at Sandbank Gaelic Medium Unit
Whether it is in ‘crisis’ is debatable and is possibly overly dramatic language however Angela Constance herself has admitted that standards in literacy and numeracy are falling and Nicola Sturgeon whilst denying the Scottish education system is failing has admitted it isn’t doing well enough.
I think we can all acknowledge that politicians (of all parties) exaggerate their successes and downplay their failings so you can consider what Constance and Sturgeon are ‘admitting’ within that context.
powered by SEO Super Comments