YOUR leader, Cleaning the city's stables, is surely right - though we thank them for the good work that they did do, under their present deplorable and self-inflicted circumstances, Messrs Lally and Mosson are now required to leave us. A new beginning is now required if their respective civic positions are to continue to command the respect due to them. Additionally, to voluntarily release themselves will also allow them to regain our personal - perhaps even moral - respect.
However, if the gentlemen themselves cannot do this, for the sake of the good name of Glasgow (which both have lovingly espoused over the years, and in the name of which they allowed themselves to be appointed) then there is little alternative for the appointing body but to remove them from office, quickly, professionally, and without acrimony. Otherwise, will Glasgow continue to mean ''dear, green place'' for its citizens and visitors?
Or, unworthily, for she has over recent years managed to rid herself of the title of ''no mean city'', become known as ''dung city''.
Rev C Blair Gillon,
3 Dargarvel Avenue, Glasgow.
February 2.
AS an outside observer of the goings-on in Lally Palace, I have been interested to note that the response of Messrs Lally and Mosson to the possibility of additional disciplinary action has been to vociferously threaten legal action.
Legal actions do not come cheaply in my experience and accordingly I would be interested to learn who would foot the bill for the threatened action.
Would Lally and Mosson foot the bill personally, or would the cost of the action be considered as a suitable use for the Common Good Fund?
Donald Clark,
15 Middlepenny Road,
Langbank.
February 2.
SO, Labour's Executive has wimped out. It is to be left to Glasgow's Labour Group to sort out the Pat Lally affair. How could it have done so if he had been a directly elected Provost?
Councillor Robert Aldridge,
Liberal Democrat Group Leader,
City of Edinburgh Council.
City Chambers,
High Street, Edinburgh.
February 2.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article