On 1 Sep 2011 at 2:50pm Zebedee wrote:
In true Paul Newman style Barcombe & Hamsey Tory Councillor Donna Edmunds has been a naughty girl on Twitter. Obviously not realising that Twitter is a public communications channel (duh!) she has called a constituent a "village idiot" and when being challenged about her support for full privatisation of the NHS said "You're an idiot. Pay your taxes to die of cancer if you want".
Our lovely caring, sharing representative, who cites her hero as right-wing Tory nutter John Redwood, writes a blog under the name Hoodie Hugger, an acronym she also uses in this forum.
Argus article link below.
Donna on the web:
Her blog: donnaedmunds.blogspot.com
Hoodie Hugger blog: donnaedmunds.blogspot.com/
And the woman responsible for rearing the muppet, lovely Tory mother Iana:
Check it out here »
On 1 Sep 2011 at 3:16pm Ratty wrote:
The most amazing thing is that she is Lead Councillor for Communications.
Clearly the concept of Twitter is beyond her.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 3:21pm Yawn.... wrote:
Ha ha ha ha. That's funny. What a twerp.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 3:26pm padster wrote:
Quite fit for a tory (sexist i know)......why is anyone surprised, she is a tory fox hunting barbour jacket wearing , 4X4 driving slapper, i dont know if she fox hunts or drives a 4X4 or has a barbour jacket , but she most probably does. Like they say you can put lipstick pn a pig, but it's still a pig.
As you can tell, i dislike the the tory's alot......
On 1 Sep 2011 at 3:56pm Kettle wrote:
Also women, but the sound of it...
On 1 Sep 2011 at 4:29pm padster wrote:
I dislike tory's...kettle, also women....so does this mean all tory's are women?
On 1 Sep 2011 at 5:15pm getorfmyland wrote:
Donna doesn't fit your idea of Tory woman... supposedly 'working class', as her mother came on here to state (but I think this probably open to interpretation).
Mostly I care about the fact that she does not represent Barcombe one iota. She's probably only been there once since the election. I blame the Green Party... they split the Barcombe libdem vote and allowed the little loose-cannon right-wing nutter to slip in (actually I don't really blame the Greens).
Tory Libertarian follower of John Redwood. What a joke. She should be sacked. Hmm... can Barcombe sack her?
On 1 Sep 2011 at 5:41pm DFL wrote:
Not very professional which ever way you look at it !!
On 1 Sep 2011 at 6:35pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Padster, why don't you like a kettle owned by a tory? It has been mentioned before that it is strange that someone would reveal someones acronym while hiding behind their own. Unless I have it wrong ...time for bed....boiiiiing.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 6:48pm Southover Queen wrote:
"Donna doesn't fit your idea of Tory woman... supposedly 'working class',"
The most dangerous variety of Tory in my experience.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 7:37pm JimCornelius wrote:
Not only did Donna Edmunds say "@Jim_Cornelius you're an idiot. Pay your taxes to die of cancer if that's what you want to do." to me she then lies about it in the Argus. She is quoted as saying "I don‚??t regret calling him an idiot. It has to be seen in the context of a conversation that was going on for three or four hours and I had persistently told him I didn‚??t want to talk anymore." - this is completely untrue.
She only made one comment asking me to stop tweeting her and this was the DAY AFTER she called me an idiot, when I was remonstrating her for the insult. Here are the relevant tweets check the dates and times - h**p://twitter.com/#!/DonnaInSussex/status/104166634020806656 h**p://twitter.com/#!/DonnaInSussex/status/104469989112807424 .
We were having a conversation about the NHS and she made the idiot/cancer comment after I mockingly praised her Googling skills for finding an article in the Telegraph that she was trying to use to counter my evidence from the BMJ (via the Guardian) that showed that the NHS was more cost-effective that many other systems across Europe and the USA.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 8:46pm Zebedee wrote:
So, Donna is a right-wing libertarian Tory liar who wants to privatise the NHS.
Barcombe Tories... did you vote for this car-crash? Do you still want her? Did you know what you were voting for? The majority of us who did not vote for her do not want her.....
On 1 Sep 2011 at 8:56pm Zebedee wrote:
Nice one to retweet:
Lovely. Keep digging.
ebm. Start a(nother) thread about anonymity and I'll respond. This is not the thread for that discussion though.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 9:17pm Off-Message wrote:
Oh come on. Is it coz she's called someone an idiot, or coz she's a Tory? Stop pretending you care about the former! Ok, so the language was slightly unparliamentary and perhaps on reflection inadvisable for a public representative but it wasn't in the council chamber, it was on Twitter. For Cllr Eiloart to say her comments were 'completely off the radar' is utter hyperbole. For once there's someone on the council with some intellect and passion and who's obviously prepared to challenge received wisdom and make a few enemies among the vested interests. Hurrah.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 9:26pm Spleen wrote:
Intellect? You are not serious are you?
And... it's because she is an idiot.... and a self-serving Tory, of course.
Passion is not hard to find among our local councilors; Ruth O'Keefe, Ian Elioart, Matt Kent etc. It seems that the juvenile libertarian Donna Edmunds just missed out on the intelligence bit.
Errr..and since when did Tories (political representatives of the establishment) not represent the vested interest?
Cretinous post of the decade. Next.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 9:36pm Fairmeadow wrote:
As Barcombe people (or at least those who bothered to vote) chose to vote Tory, they can hardly complain that they have got the representative they deserve. Only village idiots would expect anything different.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 9:54pm Zebedee wrote:
The majority who voted in Barcombe did not vote for Donna (and overall a 'large' majority of Barcombe residents did not vote for Donna). It is very open to doubt that even the people who voted for her realised that they were voting for a libertarian youngster who craved to privatise the National Health Service and who would not visit Barcombe again once she had been elected. Needless to say none of this was mentioned in her election publicity literature.
LDC Lead Officer for Communications demonstrates she has no idea about one of the main channels of the media she is 'leading' others about. Incompetent or what? In the private sector this is cause enough for the sack. Donna loves the private sector (so much so that she thinks it should provide our country's health service). Live by the sword, die by the sword?
Resign Donna. You've lost any credibility you may have had.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 10:36pm the old mayor wrote:
Why the furore - She is a Career Councillor as they all are. They are not to be trusted or respected as they tend to be unreliable.
Councillors and Politicians are like dirty nappies and should be changed regularly for the same reasons.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 10:41pm Yawn... wrote:
How about now?
On 1 Sep 2011 at 10:44pm plumpton girl wrote:
The constituents of Barcombe could organise a petition asking her to resign and present it to the council.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 11:06pm Southover Queen wrote:
Why the furore, Old Mayor? Because we live in a democracy. We elect people to make decisions for the collective good, whether it's the chair of the residents' association or - eventually - the prime minister. The only recourse for the electorate when our representatives misbehave is to make a fuss about it. And anyway, if this person actually is a career politician my prediction is that it will be a short one indeed, if hoping that your opponents die of cancer is the standard of debate.
On 1 Sep 2011 at 11:39pm the old mayor wrote:
I would not wish Cancer on anyone !
On 2 Sep 2011 at 7:33am booring wrote:
Twitter is about public announcement of private thought, it had nothing to do with her job...if she wanted to call the guy an idiot then why can't she?! He probably is one...
On 2 Sep 2011 at 7:34am booring wrote:
RE: The cancer thing, she publicly apologised for that, and also swiftly edited the message to "if you want to pay your taxes for a crappy service..." it was a good point, badly made
On 2 Sep 2011 at 9:13am Toot wrote:
I seem to remember that a certain G Brown of Downing Street pretty much lost an election on the back of a less offensive comment made in private (albeit made publicly available by the media) - I can't see how this nasty piece of work can hold onto her job after the fuss the Tory party made over Brown's thoughtlessness.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 9:13am Southover Queen wrote:
Twitter is about announcing your thoughts to the world, and anything you say can be read by absolutely anyone. What's more once it's said you can't unsay it, so no, she didn't "edit the message" she issued an amendment - and not immediately either. As "Lead Officer for Communications" she ought to understand that well.
As to the NHS: if the model to aspire to is the US free market then I have to disagree. Admin costs there amount to nearly a third of all expenditure (so perhaps not quite as efficient as you might hope?), and half of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills - and the majority of those are insured. Your child is four times as likely to die at birth if you're African American and perinatal mortality rates as a whole are the highest in the developed world. So perhaps not such a good point really.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 9:19am padster wrote:
Sorry EBM, i have no idea what you are on about...
On 2 Sep 2011 at 9:38am Ha-Ha wrote:
Life would be extremely boring if people like Donna Edmunds were kept under wraps.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 9:53am 'ere be monsters wrote:
Padster. I dislike tory's...kettle. It means you dislike the kettle belonging to the tory.
I dislike Tories means you don't like people in the Conservative Party. Perhaps that's what you meant? Just wondering.
Didn't intend to start a discussion Zebedee, just made the point.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 10:52am Ia Eiloart wrote:
I should explain my "off the radar" comment referred to above. It referred to Cllr Edmunds' tweet that started the whole thing, in which she said that one of her top three priorities was to privatise the NHS. Privatising the NHS is off the political radar, in the sense that none of the three main parties advocates it. As far as I know, there isn't a single MP from a party that does advocate it. In fact, I can't think of a single political party that advocates privatising the NHS. So, that's what I meant by "off the radar".
As for calling somebody an idiot in a debate. Well, that's fine in general, but not for an elected councillor discussing political policy in a public forum. In this case, it was all the worse because she was responding to presentation of evidence - published in the British Medical Journal - by throwing a strop. You just have to expect better from councillors. In the end, of course, the electorate will be the judge.
Cllr Edmunds told the Argus that she'd called Jim Cornelius an idiot after "she had persistently told him I didn't want to talk anymore". That's simply not true. She told him that she didn't want to argue *once*, and that was after she'd called him an idiot. He sent one fairly innocuous tweet after that, which she could have ignored. Instead she called him a village idiot and blocked him.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 11:58am queequeg wrote:
"A simple point badly made" I can agree with that. Obviously if you are suffering from cancer then you would want your hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax money (in your lifetime) to have gone some way towards giving the best treatment possible. Once in the maw of government They will decide how it is spent and on their priorities. We as individuals have our own ideas of what it should be spent on and would do it more effectively. An argument for very small government and very great personal liberty and responsibility. Twitter is obviously not the medium to use for a complicated message.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 12:30pm Paul Newman wrote:
The complete abandonment of Publicly funded health provision is of course "off the radar" as I am sure Councillor Edmunds is entirely aware. Councillor Eiloart, however, presumably understands, that both New Labour ( falteringly ) and now the Coalition have tried to dislodge the vested interest concerned to protect our unique centralised Soviet system.
The process of privatisation , then, is very much on the radar and it might be nice if instead of pretending not to understand the point Councillor Eiloart contributed something useful.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 12:50pm PLUMPTON LAD wrote:
Cllr Edmunds' latest silly (and offensive) outburst is a timely reminder that those who claim "there is no difference between Lib Dems and Tories anymore" are so wrong.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 12:54pm eristic wrote:
just to put another cat amongst the pigeons - i'm friends with her on facebook, where one of my favourite quotes is from Equinox magazine - Aleistair Crowley's published statement of ethics (including the line 'man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights')
now sadly I couldn't prove this, because it occured in a chat conversation, but she did once agree with every word of mr. crowley's mission statement, even the kill bit. not sure if she knows who Crowley even is, and I doubt she know's his nickname 'the great beast' but it's an interesting thing for her to agree with. In fact she will agree with most things if you present them to her in a right wing structure (even very left wing or anarchist ideas.) she's quite funny to string along...
On 2 Sep 2011 at 1:18pm Old Cynic wrote:
As an ex-cancer patient I would have to say that the traetment I received from the NHS was wonderful - the best medical care you could hope for from comitted, highly trained individuals. I have also worked in private medicine and there is no way they could replicate that level of care AND make a profit - which is all they care about
On 2 Sep 2011 at 1:23pm Cornelius Fudge wrote:
Constituent? Are you sure? Or an anonymously posting troll?
On 2 Sep 2011 at 1:27pm LTR wrote:
Little difference betwee Tories and Lib Dems? Perhaps Cllr Eiloart would like to tell us what he thinks of this internet posting, apparently made last year by a current Lib Dem District Councillor colleague using a pseudonym.
"Newhaven consists of just five working class families who have been interbreeding for centuries and look where it's got them. "
On 2 Sep 2011 at 1:32pm bastian wrote:
a local lad himself, I believe he lived at hastings, I went to see his cowel after he died and was most amused to find it was made of briar nylon, but she is plainly two sandwiches short of a picnic and in a local councillor that is very dangerous.
IE, if none of the party's and none of the politicians want to privatise the NHS then why and how is it happening?. There was an article in the paper yesterday about the PFI money being taken up by the private companies who will run health areas being put in off shore accounts, so we fund the company and then don't get any tax back off them even though they are running a company in our country for our country.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 1:35pm bastian wrote:
that was to eristic just so we don't get any confusion.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 1:48pm Southover Girl wrote:
LTR says: "...internet posting, apparently made last year by a current Lib Dem District Councillor colleague using a pseudonym.
"Newhaven consists of just five working class families who have been interbreeding for centuries and look where it's got them. "
Did the Tories try to spin this?
I see the Lib Dems finally have some energy - shame it's focused on slagging someone off, rather than doing any good for its own constituents -
but not much of a surprise.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 2:42pm padster wrote:
the reason why full privatisation is off the radar, is because the british electorate will never allow it. The NHS is unique in a good way , although Cuba has a good centralised system. The NHS is not perfect and the same can be said for any big system , but the NHS delivers and considering the population and the complexities of health needs and the expectations of the people who use it , it does very well. Privatisation serves only those who can afford it. We dont do things like that in this country, we look after everyone. We sent everyone to war , and so the NHS was the society post war britain expeceted and demanded. Remember waiting lists? yes under the tories pre 1997 years of under investment. labour invested heavily , not always wiseley (PFI) but they put money in and made it better, and the best bit , Cameron knows this is the case.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 2:50pm Jonathan Freeman wrote:
It clearly does not take much to earn the Twitter ire of Donna Edmunds, I was instantly blocked for correcting her spelling of hypocrisy. I would expect a little more acceptance & tolerance of criticism from one of my district councillors.
Unless of course she did mean to accusse Polly Toynbee of "Hypocracy", whatever that is, in which case I would gladly have apologised...
On 2 Sep 2011 at 3:26pm Jonathan Freeman wrote:
And yes, I'm aware that there's an extra S above for "accuse". ‚?? A typo. Don't worry, I will let you point this out without being blocked.
On 2 Sep 2011 at 6:33pm Nick Luthi wrote:
Clumsily, and worse in synopsis - Donna has tried to point out that:
Yes - the NHS is cost effective unless you consider "negative outcomes" as a cost.
We have some of the worst cancer recovery statistics in Europe and yet the Blair / Brown governments put the improvement of Oncology at the heart of their shiny new NHS.
Some of the responses ( now deleted ) to this forum, have shown far less humanity than she is accused of a lack of.
How dare your correspondents presume that she or her family has not been touched by cancer, illness or needed the NHS.
How dare your correspondents solicit acts of violence against them.
My familly, her family, your family has been affected by cancer.
We're all entitled to express whether or not we feel the status quo works.