Is the clerk sniping?

Question

In the minutes of a recent meeting, all the Councillors were referred to as 'Cllr (surname)'. Except one. She was frequently referred to as 'Cllr Ms (surname)'.  She is not the only female on the Council. She is however the only Trans female on the Council. Should the Clerk be challenged?

Answer 1

Goodness me has the madness that attempts forced indoctrination on us now invaded the PC? 

Is this as a result of the person concerned informing the chair as to how they wish to be addressed or announced at the pc meeting? If so why? As all other members are addressed perfectly respectfully as "councillor" then surname, why should this not apply to all?

Reverse discrimination at its best to make a political incorrect personal point.

I wish to be referred to at meetings as "beer loving hetrosexual all male dinosaur who tells you when you are wrong which isn't bullying"

When will this woke madness end? Life isn't a perpetual protest it is for simply living for the majority of people

Comments

You have completely got the wrong end of the stick. The Councillor does just want to be treated the same as the rest. It is the Clerk that decided to prefix a title and thus single her out.

---

Yeah - you’re well out of line there!

Telling someone they are wrong IS bullying!  And I have the CoC complaint to prove it ‼️


Don’t expect to have an opinion (let alone voice it) certainly not as a beer loving dinosaur!

---

Perhaps the clerk has fallen foul of a misguided sense of fear of perceived censorship for not following the woke propagated mandate. Or perhaps there is a complete lack of sense of humour and common sense invading the first level of government. After all it is the norm for every other tier these days

---

I rest my case m'lord. The lunatics are firmly in charge of the asylum!

---

Perhaps I did not make myself clear.  The Cllr has said nothing, has asked for nothing and expects nothing, other than to be treated exactly the same as everyone else.  It was the Clerk that decided to prefix her name with a title, it was the Clerk who compiled the minutes and it was the Clerk that (presumably) proof-read them before distributing them. The question therefore is WHY did the Clerk, on their own volition, single out this Cllr and should they be called upon to explain?

---

Perfectly clear, perhaps as said the clerk felt obligated to conform ( through fear or incorrect knowledge ) with a mythical obligation that they must follow that all invented genders or pronouns of self pronouncement have to be observed.

---

T.B.H. I can't see that. Surely if the Clerk didn't want to pay even lip-service to that nonsense all they had to do was treat everyone the same? They couldn't be criticised for that.

Answer 2

Why is it necessary to "challenge the clerk"?  Wouldn't a simple "please refer to me as Cllr. X" be sufficient?

In my council we have two Cllr. Jones (and yes, they are husband and wife!).  So, they are usually referred to as Cllr. Jones and Cllr. Mrs. Jones.

Comments

I agree, but surely it should not even be necessary to ask? The challange would be "Why DIDN'T you refer to me as Cllr X"?

---

Nobody's perfect, especially in this day and age when there seem to be so many ways to trip up.   Being of a certain age, I am unfamiliar with what is now considered appropriate language sometimes and worry about getting it wrong so would welcome some guidance.  I heard someone use a word on tv the other day that used to be derogatory and was amazed to learn that it's now considered the right description.  I would only "challenge" your clerk if the request to address the councillor in a certain way is refused or ignored.