Councillors banned from tweeting in meetings (From Essex County Standard)

Could they not just nominate one person per meeting to 'twitter,' thereby freeing up the attention of the others in attendance.

Said person could be nominated as the 'chief twit' perhaps?

B*ggering about with a phone when you are supposed to be listening, participating and perhaps even making decisions that affect the lives of others isn't just rude, it is irresponsible.

Well done the councillors, for once. They should go further and ban texting and other distractions during meetings.
Journalists and the public can still tweet and text, and that is quite enough.
It is astounding that it took them two hours to reach a decision on such a simple administrative matter. Ten minutes would have been ample.

Boris wrote:
Well done the councillors, for once. They should go further and ban texting and other distractions during meetings.
Journalists and the public can still tweet and text, and that is quite enough.
It is astounding that it took them two hours to reach a decision on such a simple administrative matter. Ten minutes would have been ample.

Ten minutes would make it difficult to justify their expenses!

You're missing the point.

The official minutes are published weeks later and dont contain half of the discussion. They also only represent the "official" view.

The ability for a cllr to put their view across to the electorate while something is being debated is valuable.

It also allows the electorate to respond to points live while the meeting is being held. Not everyone can attend council meetings, but this would have shown some engagment.

I would be interested to know how many members of the electorate follow council meetings on Twitter and "engage" with members in this way.

sandgronun64 wrote:
Could they not just nominate one person per meeting to 'twitter,' thereby freeing up the attention of the others in attendance.

Said person could be nominated as the 'chief twit' perhaps?

B*ggering about with a phone when you are supposed to be listening, participating and perhaps even making decisions that affect the lives of others isn't just rude, it is irresponsible.

I found your comments thought provoking.
If one is to twit,
is one a twitterer?
collectively,
If many who twit together,
do they became collectively tw,ats.

I was only thinking out loud,
but I must be wrong, surely.

jeffbridges wrote:

sandgronun64 wrote:
Could they not just nominate one person per meeting to 'twitter,' thereby freeing up the attention of the others in attendance.

Said person could be nominated as the 'chief twit' perhaps?

B*ggering about with a phone when you are supposed to be listening, participating and perhaps even making decisions that affect the lives of others isn't just rude, it is irresponsible.

I found your comments thought provoking.
If one is to twit,
is one a twitterer?
collectively,
If many who twit together,
do they became collectively tw,ats.

I was only thinking out loud,
but I must be wrong, surely.

Ha Ha! Spot on! Tw,ats ... I love it!

Made my evening.

jeffbridges wrote:

sandgronun64 wrote:
Could they not just nominate one person per meeting to 'twitter,' thereby freeing up the attention of the others in attendance.

Said person could be nominated as the 'chief twit' perhaps?

B*ggering about with a phone when you are supposed to be listening, participating and perhaps even making decisions that affect the lives of others isn't just rude, it is irresponsible.

I found your comments thought provoking.
If one is to twit,
is one a twitterer?
collectively,
If many who twit together,
do they became collectively tw,ats.

I was only thinking out loud,
but I must be wrong, surely.

Oh, I wish I had thought of that line.

It just about describes people that play with their phones when they should be listening.

I for one think you are right.

I think anyone who tweets is either following a z list "celebrity" or wishing to become one. #I'mnotbothered.

jut1972 wrote:
You're missing the point.

The official minutes are published weeks later and dont contain half of the discussion. They also only represent the "official" view.

The ability for a cllr to put their view across to the electorate while something is being debated is valuable.

It also allows the electorate to respond to points live while the meeting is being held. Not everyone can attend council meetings, but this would have shown some engagment.

You're missing the point, Jut. A councillor sending messages to his electors is not following the debate. There is plenty of time to debate the debates afterwards with the electors. They cannot take part in debates because they are not councillors, and they don't need to either, because they are represented by those councillors, who will provide detailed accounts of debates on request.
If someone wants to "engage with" the council, they can leave work early and attend at 6 pm to have their say for 3 minutes, and still be home by 7 pm in most cases. If they are too busy even to do that, then they are too busy to bother with minute-by-minute updates while they should be reading bedtime stories to their children.
It amazes me that as many as 22 councillors voted in favour of this half-baked idea.

seikothrill wrote:

Boris wrote:
Well done the councillors, for once. They should go further and ban texting and other distractions during meetings.
Journalists and the public can still tweet and text, and that is quite enough.
It is astounding that it took them two hours to reach a decision on such a simple administrative matter. Ten minutes would have been ample.

Ten minutes would make it difficult to justify their expenses!

There were more important items on the agenda, which could have been given more attention.

Boris wrote:

seikothrill wrote:

Boris wrote:
Well done the councillors, for once. They should go further and ban texting and other distractions during meetings.
Journalists and the public can still tweet and text, and that is quite enough.
It is astounding that it took them two hours to reach a decision on such a simple administrative matter. Ten minutes would have been ample.

Ten minutes would make it difficult to justify their expenses!

There were more important items on the agenda, which could have been given more attention.

Oh for goodness sake, I had to sit through nearly three hours of shall we or shan't we! What a waste of precious time! Two Councillors were falling asleep, others were not whispering but chatting among themselves, the majority were taking notes, writing speeches. What on earth is the difference?

added quote by mistake, my apologies Boris

Feisty CBC wrote:
I think anyone who tweets is either following a z list "celebrity" or wishing to become one. #I'mnotbothered.

An interesting theory. Tell me are you chairman of the smart party?

amanstan57 wrote:
added quote by mistake, my apologies Boris

Apologies accepted.