Councillor Twiss gets his dictionary in a Twiss!

I honestly wish we had made this up!

Councillor Phil “I have never been and I am not currently the EDDC Tory Party Whip” Twiss is reporting Independent Councillor Claire Wright to Devon and Cornwall Police for publishing a comment on her blog, from a contributor, which suggested that Tory councillors should be culled (i.e. reduced in number)!

I think poor old Phil has been spending too much time with seagulls and not enough time reading his papers! As Paul Arnott (in his private capacity) said in his response to this news on Claire Wright’s blog:

Cull” is a commonly used expression which in a political context means “reduce”. When the BBC’s Nick Robinson talks of a cull of Labout MPs in Scotland after the next election nobody imagines them being chased across grouse moors with shotguns. … Do the people of Honiton St Michaels really want their member to be wasting police time like this?

But the serious side of this is how dirty local politics has now become. Mainstream parties are now not just rattled but panic-stricken at the once unbelievable (to them) idea that they would not rule forever.

4 thoughts on “Councillor Twiss gets his dictionary in a Twiss!

  1. Perhaps Claire’s contributor should have said prune. It’s what ones does to remove dead wood.


  2. In his email to Tory councillors Phil Twiss whinges about a “highly offensive comment against Conservative Party Councillors which I am sure you find as appalling and distasteful as me.”

    No Phil, we find it less!


  3. The “Malicious Communications Act 1988” says that two criteria need to be met for it to apply:

    a. It needs to be either indecent / grossly offensive or a threat. The word “cull” used in a political context would be very unlikely to be considered indecent or grossly offensive.

    b. It needs to be (intentionally) intended to cause distress or anxiety. Well, I sincerely doubt that Phil Twiss seriously considered it a threat against his life which would cause him anxiety and distress, and if he really did then he is even more paranoid than I have previously thought. But even if he did, it would have had to have been posted by the commentator with that intent, which I very much doubt.

    So it seems to me very doubtful that the particular comment on Claire’s Blog is actually covered by this act.

    So here’s another comment that Phil Twiss will object to. Is his middle name Rodney?

    Personally, like an American Express card used to do, Phil Twiss’ own actions say more about him than anyone else possibly can.

    Here is someone who:

    a. Either doesn’t have sufficient a grip of the English language to understand common political parlance, or deliberately mis-understands the context in order to play petty political games.

    b. Is apparently caused anxiety or distress by a small comment, made in a political context, that anyone else would consider to be about a reduction in Tory councillor numbers at the next election. But here he is getting all hot under the collar (or pretending to at least). Frankly, if he really is so paranoid that he thinks this is a threat against his life, he probably shouldn’t be in politics.

    c. Can’t be bothered to find out about whether the Malicious Communications Act actually applies before making a malicious complaint under it. (Oh the irony of that!)

    d. Doesn’t even let the (metaphorical) ink dry on his first email, before breaking his word and doing what he said he wouldn’t. What better example can there be to show that Phil Twiss is NOT a man of his word and cannot be trusted.

    e. Cannot find any sensible or serious grounds to engage in debate with Claire (e.g. real policies) and has to resort to histrionic grand-standing like this to attempt to score points.

    To me, this seems like a straight-forward case of wasting police time (which is itself a criminal offence). I know that realistically this is not likely to happen, but oh how I do wish that this ends with Phil twiss being charged with wasting police time. That would be an absolutely deliciously ironic end to this sorry saga.

    To finish, I wonder whether the people of Honiton really want someone like Phil Twiss as a councillor to represent them? I cannot find ANYTHING on google linking Phil Twiss with the 300 houses in Gittisham Parish, so do his voters want someone who doesn’t spend his time representing them on something important like that, but does have time to make up malicious complaints like this? Someone who either has real histrionics or pretends to do so to score political points? Someone who hasn’t any real thoughts of his own to debate? Someone who cannot be trusted to keep his word?

    So, let us hope that in next May’s elections, the voters choose someone who truly represents them and fights for what they want.


Comments are closed.