|
Nello
Aug 8, 2015 14:05:55 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2015 14:05:55 GMT
To be honest I'm getting a bit fed up about reading about Nello. I had met and known the man before his celebrity status. He is a avid Stoke fan but is not really from Stoke-on-Trent, more a Newcastle person.The film although based on Nello was quite creative in its story line. It was an incredibly funny and uplifting film to watch and everyone involved in it's production deserve praise. I have watched it several times. After that I draw a line. I felt very angry that Nello has been given the freedom of Stoke-on-Trent. There are many more meritorious invividuals who have contributed to this City. It seems nowadays that the media is controlling and effecting people's thinking.
Hey !!!!!! Don't go knocking us Newcastle persons, cobber.....please !!!!
I was born in May Bank and lived in Clayton for many years before I came to Oz....but it doesn't make me less of a Potters supporter
I've been supporting 'em for almost 50 years......and finally saw 'em in the flesh in Singapore after 44 years
Keep you eyes open for next year wonder where we will be next closed season on our Asia adventure If we do I'll do everything I can to make sure I get there after this years awesome week.
|
|
|
Nello
Aug 9, 2015 16:00:38 GMT
Post by StokieSC on Aug 9, 2015 16:00:38 GMT
I'm Castle (Knutton) born and bred.
Always classed myself a Stokie.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 10, 2015 8:24:32 GMT
I think you have seen something that I never said. No where did I say that you had to be from Stoke to be a Stoke supporter. What I do think is that you should be from Stoke-on-Trent to warrant the freedom of the City. We are talking about someone who has contributed very little. For most of his life he has most probably claimed benefit and he has not made any effort to live independently. The character in the film may have been funny because people laughed at him and his simplicity but he was a rude individual who took for granted other people's generosity for granted. Who should merit the Freedom of the City? For me a person who has worked tirelessly within our community with dedication and determination and as a result the whole community has benefitted markedly from that endeavour. It is not Nello's book, it is not Nello's film, it is not Nello's drama award. All the awards for the film, the actors and the book are well merited. Nello himself is a harmless and limited individual on which these creative pieces of work were based. I read your two posts last night, and decided to sleep on it before deciding whether to respond. On the one hand there is something inappropriate and unedifying about entering into a public debate about the merits of a third person, especially when, due to the anonymity of a username, I've no idea who you are, where or how you've known Neil, and whether we have ever met ( which is quite possible, if, as you say, you have known Neil since before he was a "celebrity"). Was the right response to take Neil's advice from the film - if someone is not nice to you, just find someone who is ( of which there are many) ? On the other hand, you have said some things about Neil and the film which I think are inaccurate and misleading. Neil doesn't use a computer, so can't respond himself, so it is right that someone should respond on his behalf, which I will do. As another poster has said, given that you are "fed up" of reading about Neil, it's difficult to understand why you opened a thread with his name in the tile. You are right that Neil has always lived in the Borough of Newcastle under Lyme, not the City of Stoke on Trent. You are "angry" about the award of freedom of the City to Neil. Whatever one's view on whether recipients of freedom of the City should only ever be people who live in or were born inside the City boundaries; the criteria which should be used for such an award or whether Neil meets those criteria, the key point in this context is that your argument is entirely with the elected representatives sitting on the City Council, not with Neil, who didn't invite himself to become a freeman. My strong impression is that you are probably in a small minority on those points, but whether or not I'm right about that, it's not Neil's doing. You refer to the film being "quite creative" in the way it represented Neil's story, but your comment clearly has a negative tone to it, i.e the implication that it's not an accurate representation of the real Neil, and you comment that he is rude, ungrateful and limited. There is of course a strong irony in you coming on here to describe him as rude and whilst publicly saying some of the things you have about him. I don't think that most people who know Neil would use those adjectives about him (although, like many people, including yourself, he can be direct and he says things as he sees them). You say that he has "contributed very little". You are entitled to that view. Personally, I profoundly disagree with it. The film was creative in a positive sense that Pete Bowker was writing a TV drama based on a true story not a documentary. In particular the chronology was not as it appeared in the film. But virtually everything in the film is based on true stories or incidents, even though not every incident occurred exactly as it was portrayed (although most did). Perhaps most seriously, your comment that he has probably claimed benefits and has not made any attempt to live independently cannot be allowed to pass without comment and correction. As a general point I strongly reject the implication that someone who has claimed benefits is somehow a less worthy person by virtue of that necessity and cannot have contributed significantly to society or their local community. But the facts are that from approximately the age of 15 to 52 Neil worked effectively worked full time, first for many years in a potbank; then as a circus clown ( apart from the short winter months); then for Stoke City (even though he wasn't paid a wage by the club). After he left Stoke City he cared for his ailing mum for a few years until she died. It has only been since he was 56 that he hasn't, in effect, been working but has of course continued to 'work' doing things which have raised money for charity etc. I strongly disagree with your comment that he has "contributed very little". As the film shows, at the instigation of his mum, he moved into his own flat, where he still lives, about 18 years ago, so I'm mystified why you have made the comment about living independently. He has support in so doing from his friends, but so what ? You state that he is a "harmless and limited" individual. Harmless - most certainly, despite your patronising tone. Limited ? I'm not sure exactly what you mean. He has his limitations, but so do we all. We all have "special needs" but they don't always get labelled by society. It's surely about what use you make of the skills you are given and the opportunities you create for yourself. I don't know anyone, anyone at all, who has done this better than Neil. Neither do I know anyone is more content with their life. Finally, you say that it is "not Nello's book". With respect, you know nothing about it. Three people have worked on the book - myself, Neil and Francis Beckett. Nobody else is in a position to say who has done what. It's the book of Neil's life, which of course it would have impossible to produce without a heavy involvement from its subject. Unlike Pete Bowker, we had no scope for being "creative" - everything in the book is true, as it happened and when it happened.
|
|
|
Nello
Aug 10, 2015 8:51:11 GMT
Post by silverdollar on Aug 10, 2015 8:51:11 GMT
I think you have seen something that I never said. No where did I say that you had to be from Stoke to be a Stoke supporter. What I do think is that you should be from Stoke-on-Trent to warrant the freedom of the City. We are talking about someone who has contributed very little. For most of his life he has most probably claimed benefit and he has not made any effort to live independently. The character in the film may have been funny because people laughed at him and his simplicity but he was a rude individual who took for granted other people's generosity for granted. Who should merit the Freedom of the City? For me a person who has worked tirelessly within our community with dedication and determination and as a result the whole community has benefitted markedly from that endeavour. It is not Nello's book, it is not Nello's film, it is not Nello's drama award. All the awards for the film, the actors and the book are well merited. Nello himself is a harmless and limited individual on which these creative pieces of work were based. I read your two posts last night, and decided to sleep on it before deciding whether to respond. On the one hand there is something inappropriate and unedifying about entering into a public debate about the merits of a third person, especially when, due to the anonymity of a username, I've no idea who you are, where or how you've known Neil, and whether we have ever met ( which is quite possible, if, as you say, you have known Neil since before he was a "celebrity"). Was the right response to take Neil's advice from the film - if someone is not nice to you, just find someone who is ( of which there are many) ? On the other hand, you have said some things about Neil and the film which I think are inaccurate and misleading. Neil doesn't use a computer, so can't respond himself, so it is right that someone should respond on his behalf, which I will do. As another poster has said, given that you are "fed up" of reading about Neil, it's difficult to understand why you opened a thread with his name in the tile. You are right that Neil has always lived in the Borough of Newcastle under Lyme, not the City of Stoke on Trent. You are "angry" about the award of freedom of the City to Neil. Whatever one's view on whether recipients of freedom of the City should only ever be people who live in or were born inside the City boundaries; the criteria which should be used for such an award or whether Neil meets those criteria, the key point in this context is that your argument is entirely with the elected representatives sitting on the City Council, not with Neil, who didn't invite himself to become a freeman. My strong impression is that you are probably in a small minority on those points, but whether or not I'm right about that, it's not Neil's doing. You refer to the film being "quite creative" in the way it represented Neil's story, but your comment clearly has a negative tone to it, i.e the implication that it's not an accurate representation of the real Neil, and you comment that he is rude, ungrateful and limited. There is of course a strong irony in you coming on here to describe him as rude and whilst publicly saying some of the things you have about him. I don't think that most people who know Neil would use those adjectives about him (although, like many people, including yourself, he can be direct and he says things as he sees them). You say that he has "contributed very little". You are entitled to that view. Personally, I profoundly disagree with it. The film was creative in a positive sense that Pete Bowker was writing a TV drama based on a true story not a documentary. In particular the chronology was not as it appeared in the film. But virtually everything in the film is based on true stories or incidents, even though not every incident occurred exactly as it was portrayed (although most did). Perhaps most seriously, your comment that he has probably claimed benefits and has not made any attempt to live independently cannot be allowed to pass without comment and correction. As a general point I strongly reject the implication that someone who has claimed benefits is somehow a less worthy person by virtue of that necessity and cannot have contributed significantly to society or their local community. But the facts are that from approximately the age on 15 to 52 Neil worked effectively worked full time, first for many years in a potbank; then as a circus clown ( apart from the short winter months); then for Stoke City (even though he wasn't paid a wage by the club). After he left Stoke City he cared for his ailing mum for a few years until she died. It has only been since he was 56 that he hasn't, in effect, been working but has of course continued to 'work' doing things which have raised money for charity etc. I strongly disagree with your comment that he has "contributed very little". As the film shows, at the instigation of his mum, he moved into his own flat, where he still lives, about 18 years ago, so I'm mystified why you have made the comment about living independently. He has support in so doing from his friends, but so what ? You state that he is a "harmless and limited" individual. Harmless - most certainly, despite your patronising tone. Limited ? I'm not sure exactly what you mean. He has his limitations, but so do we all. We all have "special needs" but they don't always get labelled by society. It's surely about what use you make of the skills you are given and the opportunities you create for yourself. I don't know anyone, anyone at all, who has done this better than Neil. Neither do I know anyone is more content with their life. Finally, you say that it is "not Nello's book". With respect, you know nothing about it. Three people have worked on the book - myself, Neil and Francis Beckett. Nobody else is in a position to say who has done what. It's the book of Neil's life, which of course it would have impossible to produce without a heavy involvement from its subject. Unlike Pete Bowker, we had no scope for being "creative" - everything in the book is true, as it happened and when it happened. I appreciate and respect that you have taken so much time to respond to my post with so much thoughtful and constructive comment. I will agree with you that perhaps there is anger behind my comments but I can assure you that this is in no way directed at Nello. My anger is directed at the media and how it can so easily grab and direct the thoughts decisions and behaviour of people. At one point people were even demanding a knighthood for Nello. I made it clear that in my mind that Nello did not merit the freedom of the City and I still am to be convinced otherwise. If you are looking for someone who I consider did warrant such freedom then I suggest that someone like Lord Ashley who did so much for our city or if you want someone who is still alive perhaps Emma Bridgewater who's industry has kept the pottery industry alive in our city and created jobs.
|
|
|
Nello
Aug 10, 2015 9:25:04 GMT
Post by darksideofthemoon on Aug 10, 2015 9:25:04 GMT
Hey !!!!!! Don't go knocking us Newcastle persons, cobber.....please !!!!
I was born in May Bank and lived in Clayton for many years before I came to Oz....but it doesn't make me less of a Potters supporter
I've been supporting 'em for almost 50 years......and finally saw 'em in the flesh in Singapore after 44 years
Keep you eyes open for next year wonder where we will be next closed season on our Asia adventure If we do I'll do everything I can to make sure I get there after this years awesome week.
G'day me old cobber !!
I'm starting to save me pennies for next year already......I wouldn't have missed that week for all the tea in China !!
Did you tell the wife you're taking her to Singapore next year yet??
|
|
|
Nello
Aug 10, 2015 13:25:14 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2015 13:25:14 GMT
Keep you eyes open for next year wonder where we will be next closed season on our Asia adventure If we do I'll do everything I can to make sure I get there after this years awesome week.
G'day me old cobber !!
I'm starting to save me pennies for next year already......I wouldn't have missed that week for all the tea in China !!
Did you tell the wife you're taking her to Singapore next year yet??
LOL no Wrexham
|
|
bodd
Academy Starlet
Posts: 153
|
Nello
Aug 10, 2015 13:42:47 GMT
Post by bodd on Aug 10, 2015 13:42:47 GMT
i was born and breed in tean so am obviously not a stokie malcolm best post i have read on the oatcake perhaps more posters should sleep on it before they post shite
|
|
|
Nello
Aug 10, 2015 13:49:26 GMT
Post by Onneravineet on Aug 10, 2015 13:49:26 GMT
I think you have seen something that I never said. No where did I say that you had to be from Stoke to be a Stoke supporter. What I do think is that you should be from Stoke-on-Trent to warrant the freedom of the City. We are talking about someone who has contributed very little. For most of his life he has most probably claimed benefit and he has not made any effort to live independently. The character in the film may have been funny because people laughed at him and his simplicity but he was a rude individual who took for granted other people's generosity for granted. Who should merit the Freedom of the City? For me a person who has worked tirelessly within our community with dedication and determination and as a result the whole community has benefitted markedly from that endeavour. It is not Nello's book, it is not Nello's film, it is not Nello's drama award. All the awards for the film, the actors and the book are well merited. Nello himself is a harmless and limited individual on which these creative pieces of work were based. Excuse me but Emma Bridgewater is not from Stoke on Trent, therefore how can she be awarded the freedom of the city? She doesn't qualify on your criteria that you deem necessary. I think she is a shrewd businesswoman who has done as well out of Stoke on Trent as Stoke on Trent has done from her. Great Brand strategy that fits the ethos of the products and long may it continue. There is a reason why it is so hard to find out where Emma is actually from! She now has her own dwelling in Stoke to strengthen her ties with the area. She and her business are a credit to the area.
|
|
|
Nello
Aug 10, 2015 14:04:25 GMT
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 10, 2015 14:04:25 GMT
I read your two posts last night, and decided to sleep on it before deciding whether to respond. On the one hand there is something inappropriate and unedifying about entering into a public debate about the merits of a third person, especially when, due to the anonymity of a username, I've no idea who you are, where or how you've known Neil, and whether we have ever met ( which is quite possible, if, as you say, you have known Neil since before he was a "celebrity"). Was the right response to take Neil's advice from the film - if someone is not nice to you, just find someone who is ( of which there are many) ? On the other hand, you have said some things about Neil and the film which I think are inaccurate and misleading. Neil doesn't use a computer, so can't respond himself, so it is right that someone should respond on his behalf, which I will do. As another poster has said, given that you are "fed up" of reading about Neil, it's difficult to understand why you opened a thread with his name in the tile. You are right that Neil has always lived in the Borough of Newcastle under Lyme, not the City of Stoke on Trent. You are "angry" about the award of freedom of the City to Neil. Whatever one's view on whether recipients of freedom of the City should only ever be people who live in or were born inside the City boundaries; the criteria which should be used for such an award or whether Neil meets those criteria, the key point in this context is that your argument is entirely with the elected representatives sitting on the City Council, not with Neil, who didn't invite himself to become a freeman. My strong impression is that you are probably in a small minority on those points, but whether or not I'm right about that, it's not Neil's doing. You refer to the film being "quite creative" in the way it represented Neil's story, but your comment clearly has a negative tone to it, i.e the implication that it's not an accurate representation of the real Neil, and you comment that he is rude, ungrateful and limited. There is of course a strong irony in you coming on here to describe him as rude and whilst publicly saying some of the things you have about him. I don't think that most people who know Neil would use those adjectives about him (although, like many people, including yourself, he can be direct and he says things as he sees them). You say that he has "contributed very little". You are entitled to that view. Personally, I profoundly disagree with it. The film was creative in a positive sense that Pete Bowker was writing a TV drama based on a true story not a documentary. In particular the chronology was not as it appeared in the film. But virtually everything in the film is based on true stories or incidents, even though not every incident occurred exactly as it was portrayed (although most did). Perhaps most seriously, your comment that he has probably claimed benefits and has not made any attempt to live independently cannot be allowed to pass without comment and correction. As a general point I strongly reject the implication that someone who has claimed benefits is somehow a less worthy person by virtue of that necessity and cannot have contributed significantly to society or their local community. But the facts are that from approximately the age on 15 to 52 Neil worked effectively worked full time, first for many years in a potbank; then as a circus clown ( apart from the short winter months); then for Stoke City (even though he wasn't paid a wage by the club). After he left Stoke City he cared for his ailing mum for a few years until she died. It has only been since he was 56 that he hasn't, in effect, been working but has of course continued to 'work' doing things which have raised money for charity etc. I strongly disagree with your comment that he has "contributed very little". As the film shows, at the instigation of his mum, he moved into his own flat, where he still lives, about 18 years ago, so I'm mystified why you have made the comment about living independently. He has support in so doing from his friends, but so what ? You state that he is a "harmless and limited" individual. Harmless - most certainly, despite your patronising tone. Limited ? I'm not sure exactly what you mean. He has his limitations, but so do we all. We all have "special needs" but they don't always get labelled by society. It's surely about what use you make of the skills you are given and the opportunities you create for yourself. I don't know anyone, anyone at all, who has done this better than Neil. Neither do I know anyone is more content with their life. Finally, you say that it is "not Nello's book". With respect, you know nothing about it. Three people have worked on the book - myself, Neil and Francis Beckett. Nobody else is in a position to say who has done what. It's the book of Neil's life, which of course it would have impossible to produce without a heavy involvement from its subject. Unlike Pete Bowker, we had no scope for being "creative" - everything in the book is true, as it happened and when it happened. I appreciate and respect that you have taken so much time to respond to my post with so much thoughtful and constructive comment. I will agree with you that perhaps there is anger behind my comments but I can assure you that this is in no way directed at Nello. My anger is directed at the media and how it can so easily grab and direct the thoughts decisions and behaviour of people. At one point people were even demanding a knighthood for Nello. I made it clear that in my mind that Nello did not merit the freedom of the City and I still am to be convinced otherwise. If you are looking for someone who I consider did warrant such freedom then I suggest that someone like Lord Ashley who did so much for our city or if you want someone who is still alive perhaps Emma Bridgewater who's industry has kept the pottery industry alive in our city and created jobs. Of course, these possibilities are not mutually exclusive, are they ? Giving it to Neil does not stop the City Council giving it to anyone else. Your post prompted me to look up who has actually been given the freedom of the City. Both Lord Ashley and his wife, who you mention, were given it, but not Emma Bridgewater ( yet ! ). One thing which struck me looking through the list is just what a high proportion of them are/were local politicians. I am not personally a huge enthusiast for honours at either a local or national level. You mention the 'campaign' to get a knighthood for Neil. If you look at some of the people who have been knighted, including ex-politicians and others, I personally do not feel that they are any more worthy than Neil - or indeed large numbers of other people. A system which automatically gives an honour to retiring civil servants of a certain rank, and under which people only get honours if someone ( often one suspects at their instigation) organises letters of support, doesn't have a great amount of credibility IMHO, so Neil getting one, if it ever happened, would be no less appropriate in my view.
|
|
|
Nello
Aug 10, 2015 16:05:26 GMT
Post by jarvinski on Aug 10, 2015 16:05:26 GMT
Correct newstead
|
|
|
Nello
Aug 10, 2015 17:38:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by newsteadst3 on Aug 10, 2015 17:38:42 GMT
|
|