send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Friday, 28 February 2014


You would expect the imbecilic Cllr Palmer(when did you last stop beating your wife?!) to have got a warm reception when he wrote his garbled rubbish in Conservative Home
Despite having a friend to check his bonkers grammar and spelling, his foolish, infantile rant attracted just twelve comments(the norm for anything intelligent is around forty)

And the funny thing is that each of the comments tore into Cllr Palmer's weird ramblings. 
It seems even True Blue Tories find him a liability. 

That eminently sensible pair, Nick Paget-Brown and Tim Ahern, really need to take him to one side and forbid him posting comments under the pseudonyms of important people......

One comment even accused him of being a closet supporter of the Filthy Phelpsie and the convicted paedophile, Andrew Lamont!
The Dame cannot believe the rumours that Palmer has been encouraging Filthy Phelpsie to stand in the May elections.


  1. Cllr Palmer is an embarrassment to the Council and to his party. He deludes himself into thinking that he somehow he will be respected when he represents Queen's Gate as it is a safe Conservative ward. He is wrong. No one will ever respect him, regardless of the ward he represents. If the Conservative Group has any sense they will rid themselves of this man while there is still time.

  2. Cllr. Palmer is being extremely economical with the actualité. His claims with regards to the effect of the coalition government's welfare changes on his constituents are not borne out by the Council's own reports. He is either an illiterate buffoon who can't be bothered to read the Council's own reports or intentionally setting out to mislead. Whichever is the case he is clearly unfit to be a Councillor.

    1. Of course he's unfit.

      This is the moron who was overheard suggesting to Merrick that all the social housing in his ward should be bulldozed after his "masterful" election campaign in 2010 lost two out of three seats to Labour candidates.

      He is a massive liability. The equivalent of a political limpet mine about to go off and blow a hole in the side of the ship. The Conservative party would be wise to get rid of him at the earliest opportunity. Why they appear so intent on doing otherwise is beyond reason.

    2. Cllr Palmer might ask himself whether "his" constituents with welfare and other benefit problems prefer to go to the two Labour councillors, who have a far better track record of empathising with them and actually seeing through the problems to a conclusion.

    3. Any constituent who has had the "pleasure" of dealing with Cllr. Palmer will look elsewhere by default.

    4. It's quite amusing to see how he tries to portray his move to Queens Gate as anything other than a complete and utter defeat. Cllr. Palmer: you're moving to Queens Gate because you face complete and utter destruction at the ballot box. Don't pretend otherwise!

    5. It's a chicken run! Why did he not transfer to St. Helen's? Because he is too well known there and the electors would not be daft enough to vote for him!

    6. Indeed. Palmer is 'fondly' remembered for getting 2,000 signatures to stop Sainsbury's taking over the North Pole pub, and rough-handling a very bad-tempered meeting (that was actually in Notting Barns a neighbouring ward). He ordered the hordes to buy shares in Sainsbury so they could storm the AGM and demand their rights.

      The rest is history. Tesco bought the pub. Egg on face. Humiliation. Then - on the toss of a coin - Queen's Gate.

  3. It says so much that the Conservatives can't find anyone better to stand in Queens Gate.


Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.