British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

Hawkeye · 29-04-2008, 07:00 PM

Presumably, in the name of fairness, Titford will not allow Gulleforrd to publish any articles in publications originating from Chelmsford. Somehow though, I don't think he will be so harsh to his little brown-noser.

One has only to look back at the situation for selecting members of the Eastern Counties Committee in 2006 whereby the rules, approved by the NEC, prevented Gulleford from being a member. However, on that occasion, it did not suit Titford to play by the rules, and he wanted Gulleford on the Committee by hook or by crook.

I am sure that Martin Harvey would be more than willing to provide full details of that stitch-up.

I'd hate to be a fly on the wall at Titford's office with Hudson having to accept that his boss is backing a no-hoper!

29-04-2008, 07:00 PM	#38 (permalink)
Hawkeye Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Sunshine Coast Posts: 26	Titford Gags conference Presumably, in the name of fairness, Titford will not allow Gulleforrd to publish any articles in publications originating from Chelmsford. Somehow though, I don't think he will be so harsh to his little brown-noser. One has only to look back at the situation for selecting members of the Eastern Counties Committee in 2006 whereby the rules, approved by the NEC, prevented Gulleford from being a member. However, on that occasion, it did not suit Titford to play by the rules, and he wanted Gulleford on the Committee by hook or by crook. I am sure that Martin Harvey would be more than willing to provide full details of that stitch-up. I'd hate to be a fly on the wall at Titford's office with Hudson having to accept that his boss is backing a no-hoper!