Who is Running The Pulaski Police Department????
Who is in charge of discipline at the Pulaski Police Department? Is it the Mayor, the City manager, the Police Chief or some small time political hacks with an ax to grind? It seems this should have a very simple answer but with recent events one has to wonder just what is going on at the Police Department.
A former state employee and current political appointee was charged with a crime but he apparently thought one in his position should be given much greater consideration than the average citizen so he demanded that the officer, who has a long history of integrity and professionalism as a Police Officer, should be fired or severely reprimanded.
The newspaper reported that according to the Police Chief, Lt. Glossip the officer with the professional attitude, rather than some who may feel entitled to special privileges, would not be demoted or fired. Most thought this was the end of the caper but there was no fat lady singing only a fat guy squealing.
The next thing we're told is that Lt. Glossup is now moved into the "community welfare" division which seems to consist of only Lt. Glossup. This was reported to be a lateral transfer with no loss of rank or pay. Now in the most recent issue of the newspaper we're told that Lt. Glossup is no longer a lieutenant that his pay has been reduced but that is not a demotion. Is there a duck quacking somewhere?
In my opinion Lt. Glossup did his job with professionalism and did it correctly and punishing him to quiet the elitist crowing of a rooster is disrespectful to every citizen in the county.
A former state employee and current political appointee was charged with a crime but he apparently thought one in his position should be given much greater consideration than the average citizen so he demanded that the officer, who has a long history of integrity and professionalism as a Police Officer, should be fired or severely reprimanded.
The newspaper reported that according to the Police Chief, Lt. Glossip the officer with the professional attitude, rather than some who may feel entitled to special privileges, would not be demoted or fired. Most thought this was the end of the caper but there was no fat lady singing only a fat guy squealing.
The next thing we're told is that Lt. Glossup is now moved into the "community welfare" division which seems to consist of only Lt. Glossup. This was reported to be a lateral transfer with no loss of rank or pay. Now in the most recent issue of the newspaper we're told that Lt. Glossup is no longer a lieutenant that his pay has been reduced but that is not a demotion. Is there a duck quacking somewhere?
In my opinion Lt. Glossup did his job with professionalism and did it correctly and punishing him to quiet the elitist crowing of a rooster is disrespectful to every citizen in the county.
posted by Allen Barrett | 3:15 PM
279 Comments:
you're not giving much info on here... for those of us who AREN'T part of the rumor-mill that turns and turns and turns in this town, WHO are you talking about and WHAT was the situation that went down?
This post comes off as tittering of gossipy schoolgirls, instead of the intelligent, coherent reporting of county business that it COULD be.
Perhaps if you read the paper and kept up with the ins and outs of this community you wouldn't feel lost. This issue has been in the news for several days. I guess you were under your rock, so you didn't have a clue. Since you are capable of accessing this website, then I suggest you access the local news media and do some catching up.
I've been lost since Barrett said he kept a copy of the video before giving it to the police and then quickly deleted that lying post.
This blog makes good spectator sport, but please NEVER expect to find the truth here.
Mr. Barrett
Excuse me, but aren't you really the one principally responsible for Mr. Glossup's situation?
7:59:00 PM
I'm not Mr. Barrett, but I can sure answer that one for you. No, he's not responsible for that.
Officer Glossup was doing his duty. A citizen had a complaint against another citizen with what even Officer Glossup admitted, that he had viewed the evidence himself and found it sufficient (at that time) to confirm the charges.
And that is a reported FACT!
Now, as to what exactly happened to that evidence is open to debate. But don't think for a minute that retired State Troopers don't have friends within the court house and City halls of their respective home towns.
If so, then you don't know near as much as you think you do.
If Mr. Barrett's tape shows so much, how come he has not put it on the blog. He has put film on here before. It must not show what he says it does.
Again it's evident that you don't read any news.
Mr. Barrett's tape was held for evidence, then supposedly, someone at the police dept was suppose to have made a copy of it to disc, and in the process: managed to erase the section of tape showing the violations.
But before that; Officer Glossup viewed it and admitted that he could clearly see in that tape, that McAlister was messing with the signs.
Therefore, there is nothing now left to view.
The more important question is "who is covering the news for the Pulaski Citizen?" The underlying story has not changed. however, the reporting has.
6:32
I dsuspect that if Barrett had anything it would have already been posted on this blog. Word has it that he doesn't.
The great on that knows everything has spoken. So I dsuspect Mr.Barrett doesn't have it.
The tape situation is no longer an issue even though many of us feel there was probably a cover up within the police dept. What the issue now is McAlister demanding in a city workshop that Lt. Glossup be demoted or fired. Then, chief Dickey announces he was not demoted but given a lateral transfer. Now we read Dean Glossop WAS demoted (no longer a Lt) and reduced pay. Forget the tape issue because we do not have a choice about that, but start raising questions on 1 - why did the chief first announce no reduced pay or rank, and 2 - why did this happen just because McAlister demanded it? As Barrett's question raises - who IS running the police dept? The Mayor and City Aldermen should be looking into this and giving answers the public can believe.
How many Mayors do we have? Vanzant for county and Ford for Pulaski?
Shouldn't Ford have more say so about the Pulaski than vanzant?
5:17
I think the larger question to ask is why Mr. McAlister was upset with Mr. Glossup in the first place. In my opinion, he had every right to be furious about the matter.
Does mcalister not believe in the law being enforced?
With all the whining that was going on this blog about the sandwiched signs and that person going out to see them every day he should of known better than to stop at them.
I've heard people who's child was caught with drugs complaining about the police department or sheriff, because their little one got caught.
Did mcalister have to spend any time in jail?
If mcalister caught someone speeding, when he was a patrolman, what would he have said if someone wanted him demoted because of it?
8:46
I think a better question for Clay is, just what was he doing(as he claimed) moving anyone's sign in the first place, and where did he get the authority to do so?
According to him, he was just moving Vanzant's sign out in front of Barrett's sign. Was he part of her campaign, and given the responsibility of placement for her signs?
If not, then why did he take it upon himself to move anything?
Fact is, he's a bully of a man, and he wasn't moving Vanzant's sign, but was in fact caught by Barrett doing just what Barrett claimed he was doing. And when he got caught, he made up that cheesy story for cover. That's the most likely scenario!
Of course he's furious! He got caught in the act, and he thinks he's above the law, and how dare Lt. Glossup arrest him for anything.
Lt. Glossup is suppose to know that law enforcement is suppose to stick together. And when Dean did what he believed was "right", Clay got mad at him, and had his bud's on the inside take care of Dean for his break with the good ole boys down at the station.
This stuff isn't hard to figure out. Why Pulaski is famous for it!
Dean is the best Policeman on the force and he doesn't deserve this. I think a good dose of public outrage is in order, and whoever is responsible for this should be demoted as well!
All law enforce officers, better just ride around and look good. If you arrest anyone they may come after your job.
10:01
Who gave Barrett the authority to place his signs in such a way as to obstruct the viewing of Mrs. Vanzant's sign? Did he not do the same thing to Terry Harwell's sign? Yes. That is why Terry Harwell elevated his sign so that it would not be blocked from view by those deliberately and childishly placed on either side of it. Can't you see who provoked the entire situation?
Was barrett campaigning against Mrs. Vanzant? No. Then why did he feel the need to place his signs as he did?
I would agree with you that this stuff isn't hard to figure out. However, your most-likely scenario probably isn't very likely.
Why didn't vanzant elevate her signs like Terry Harwell did?
All fair in love and war I guess.
I don't know why barrett put his signs there, I don't know why mcalister did what he did. I don't know why you stick your nose into it since you say you aren't related to vanzant.
Sounds like a bunch of children.
Then it went on to the police department. There is a lot of good policemen in Pulaski, but this is going to hurt all of them. Just watch more people try to get out of what they get caught doing.
To me mcalister wanting Glossup demoted or fired was the worst part of all.
"Why did Barrett place his signs in close proximity to others?"
I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like all people running for political office seem to put their signs in groups of others on public right of ways, and especially at intersections.
I didn't see any of Barrett's signs "blocking" anyone's sign. Within the group yes; but not blocking them.
11:30
Of course political candidates place their signs in close proximity to others at times, but I think we both know there is a vast difference when it comes to the ones being discussed. I saw barrett's signs blocking the view of the ones in question. Furthermore, several people on the Minor Hill Highway saw the same thing I did. How do I know that? I know, because I heard them laughing about the childishness of it all.
Now, had I been Clay McAlister, I would have been furious at the police department as well. Who among us wants to be defamed? I think officer Glossup just made an honest mistake and that he should not be fired or demoted. He even admitted that he was pressured by barrett and made a wrong decision. I saw that as well...in the newspaper.
If anyone believes a citizen can "pressure" a 29 year veteran on the force and a high ranking one at that, you are smoking rope! I suspect Glossop was told what to say in a statement and thats as clear as the nose on your face.
I have heard as well that McAlister is a bully and always was especially when he was a trooper.
He wants his name cleared. That's all there is to it, and can you blame him?
He got his name cleared by the court didn't he, but the people will always wonder about it.
I also think Lt. Glossup said what he was told to to keep from being fired.
Lots of people get caught by the law want their name cleared when they know they were guilty.
Why did dickey say Glossup wasn't being demoted in the paper one time, then say he was?
Yes it was childishness placing the sign so close to vanzant's sign and it was childishness to complain so much on this blog about it like you did 6:46. Childishness for mcalister to stick his nose into it like you did.
vanzant or a member of her family should of been the one to move it.
9:08
All I ever did was comment on here about how wrong and childish it was of the one who started this whole mess to begin with.
9:08 Which was Clay McAlister - right?
I don't understand what the argument is about. Yes, Clay McAlister went out on Minor Hill Road and moved Mrs. Vanzant's sign. Now, whether Mrs. Vanzant gave him permission to do so or not is really not the point. He moved HER sign away from those put up by barrett. I know this is true, because I went out there very shortly after the incident and saw barrett's signs right where they were the day before. I remember how silly they looked with Mrs. Vanzant's sign moved away from them. Is there something I'm missing here?
7:18 Are you Clay? Why did you go check on the signs shortly after the incident?
I know that I saw a post by Barrett that he had a copy of the tape. That is why I said why did he not put it the video on here. He always states facts, so show us the proof.
9:08 if I were Clay you would be my first witness in a defamation trial. You prove his point that Barrett's lies will always cause people to wonder.
4:57
No, I'm in no way related to Mr. McAlister. A friend called and told me what had happened, and I immediately drove out to see if the information was accurate. Sure as the world, barrett's signs were right there where they had been the day before. That tells me one of two things. Either Clay didn't touch barrett's signs or barrett put them back up within minutes of the incident. I tend to believe Mr. McAlister.
By the way, I did hear a lady say she would be glad to testify to exactly what I just said. You see, she lives out that way and saw what had taken place from the beginning.
8:39 I'm not the person you replied to, but I will also wonder. Maybe it is because of Barret that it started, but why I wonder is because Mcalister wanted Glossup demoted or something done to him. Police do make mistakes. Looking at a video screen you can't see everything clearly. With Barrett's signs being taken down before and it looking like McAlister was at the signs you could wonder.
A Christian gentleman would say ok the policeman made a mistake it's been corrected, I'm man enough to forgive.
Did McAlister do that, no he wants Lt. Glossup punished.
Then the video shows sky instead of Clay with Barretts signs?? did someone mess with the tape, it can be done. all that leaves me wondering.
As for Barrett not putting the video on the blog, he shouldn't do that until he is sure all is over.
I hope it is over, Giles county has enough bad thing going on.
I've often heard someone running the law enforcement down, but when I checked they had a child put in jail and the person was mad about it, even tho the child did what he was accused of, usually drunk or drugs involved. I hate to see McAlister fall into something like that.
He was cleared wasn't he??
I honestly believe Clay is just trying to clear his name.
2:03 Your 'lady' must have x-ray vision 'cos there aint any houses close eneough for anyone to see the area in discussion from their house.
This is so old and should be put to rest. Give it a break. Let's move on to something else, please.
5:48
Do you really not understand what I said, or are you just trying to be contentious? Of course there are no houses where the incident occurred. I never said there were. She lives in the area...not on the bridge. Surely, you understood that?
I guess he means she was driving by. What time did this happen.
I would like to know what clearing McAlister's name has to do with Mcalister wanting a policeman demoted or fired?
Watch out policemen, the ones you arrest with drugs will want you fired.
7:16 said it's time to move on this is old news. Seems the one some call enabler isn't getting any attention lately.
10:17
The lady in question lives out that way and drives by that site every day.
Do you know for certain that Mr. McAlister wanted Dean to be fired? Why don't you call Mr. McAlister and ask him if it's true instead of fuming about it on this blog?
7:16
Have you not heard? There is no enabler. That is a lie started by the one who loves to promote strife. That's right; he lied!
6:06 either you are kidding or you have been off the planet for the past year. McAlister made the demand in a public work session of the Pulaski City Council. It was reported in the newspaper and on this blog. Only an enabler with their head in the sand would ask, "Do you know for certain that Mr. McAlister wanted Dean to be fired? Why don't you call Mr. McAlister and ask him if it's true instead of fuming about it on this blog?", but then you are the enabler with their head in the sand. That's been your problem all along you run your mouth without a clue of what you're talking about defending bad behavior, typical of an enabler.
6:06 I thought the incident happened on Mill St.Everyone should know that the "lying brain dead parisite",The Rev. Mr. Barrett
caused the whole problem by being out with his camera to catch anybody he could messing with his precious signs. Why dosen't he admit the truth for a change.There is no reason except for stupidity
for all this. Why don't you folks wake up and see what a villian this "habitual liar" is.
11:04 Regardless, Mr Barrett had every right to attempt to catch whoever was "messing with his precious signs" since it is against the law, as you well know, for political signs to be tampered with. The villian is not Mr. Barrett but rather the person who tampered with the signs in the first place. If any one of us had been in Barrett's shoes we all would have done the same thing.
12:01 It is also against the the law to litter as he did with his signs.We all know that he put the extra signs out and then sat there to trap anyone who came by.Get the facts right please or shut up.
2:43
Extra signs? I suppose that anything greater than 1 would be considered "too many" for you huh?
9:55
Wrong. I do know what I'm talking about, and I'm not the only one who saw barrett's signs right where he placed them. They were there before Mr. McAlister moved Mrs. Vanzant's sign away from them, and trhey were there after the police were called. I saw them.
To 3:32 A fool's folly is their empty mind and open mouth.
Let me set the record straight about the signs. I went to Capt. Dickey after a number of my signs were vandalized. I was told that unless I could catch them in the act there was nothing that could be done. Because my signs were being moved daily and specifically because "someone" had thrown my signs down the hillside on Mill street and replaced them with a Vanzant sign I set a trap, a rather good one as it turned out since it caught a rat. I placed several more signs in the same area where they had been and yes they were close to the Vanzant SIGNS. The Harwell sign on the other side of the road was never covered even though I was there first, he simply placed signs above mine on two fence posts.
The afternoon I videotaped the "political appointee" vandalize my sign I only had to wait about fifteen minutes. My signs were thrown down the hill as I have stated before and as I also have stated before I replaced the signs shortly after making the call to the police. It's no big deal that they were seen
While I was not running against Mrs Vanzant I was certainly interested in changing our government from one of vindictive, incompetence to a more responsive and effective one.
Now the topic of this thread was about how an angry little political appointee with a past record of living off the state feels entitled
to demand the firing or demotion of an upstanding police officer simply because that officer didn't bow down and recognize the privileged status the political appointee holds.
I think the rope is being measured.
wab
I thought you had stated sometime earlier that you didn't set a trap for anyone? Was that a misunderstanding?
As for your signs being thrown down the bank, I know they were there on the afternoon of the alleged incident. I went out there and saw that Mrs. Vanzant's sign had been moved away from the ones you put on both sides of hers. I saw them. The only sign I noticed that had been moved from the previous day was the one belonging to Mrs. Vanzant. Your signs were right where they had been the day before.
You speak of vindictive incompetence? You call Mr. McAlister an angry little political appointee who lived off the state? I must say that you have some nerve. Thank God, the people of Giles County knew better than to elect you to anything. And now they never will. Again, thank God.
wab
I almost forgot. Here's a quote for you:
Egotism is the anasthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.
______Frank Leahy
Sounds like we need new management in the police department. Someone who is not spineless and a but kisser
Mr. Barrett...
Why would you so hurriedly replace the signs that had supposedly been thrown down the bank? Isn't that tampering with evidence? Why didn't you leave them in the weeds?
Why can't we all be perfect like 9:29 and know everything and stick our nose into everything?
He needs to read his post and apply it to himself.
9:29 must of set out beside the signs 24 7.
was putting his signs back worse that deleting part of the video? The sign matter is over the problem is what to do about the police department and the mistreatment of an officer.
I remember when Barrett and Winkles got arrested they never bad mouthed the police office that arrested them or demanded he lose his job.
In fact I remember both Winkles and Barrett shaking hands with the officer at their trial.
10:24 Good post that's right.
3:32:00 PM
You'd sure make an excellent witness.
Why don't you come out from behind that anonymous cover, and bravely prove that Barrett is lying about this?
Talk about rumor mills: do you have any idea just how ridiculous you sound? Barrett is speaking boldly, while your busy condemning him from the crowd. I dare you to come forward and make those allegations publicly!
Well........we're waiting?
Whether McAlister touched Barrett signs or not with all the talk about them, his stopping there left it open for anyone to see him and think he was the one removing Barretts's signs.
He never should of tried to get Glossup demoted. Sure makes mcalister look bad. Worse than removing a sign would of been.
Well I travel "Mill Street" several times a day, everyday, and I never once saw any of Allen Barrett's signs placed in front of anyone's signs. So whoever you are saying that "I drove by there and saw it myself" is a monumental liar, and a stinking trouble maker to boot.
11:25 I drove Mill Street also and saw WAB's signs near Vanzant's sign, but it didn't block the sign where I couldn't see it.
I think the person who whined about it so much on the blog caused the trouble.
Just got in from work and checked the blog the reason for the late hour. I don't work in Giles County, just sleep here.
You guys (all one or two of you at the most) can criticize me til the cows come home, and it's not going to change what I saw. Mrs. Vanzant's sign was almost totally blocked from view by those of the one who started all this trouble to begin with. It baffles me that you defend him in this.
As far as testifying goes, I don't plan to do that. I believe the evidence already available will be sufficient to clear Mr. McAlister's name.
11:25
I wanted to respond to your untruthful charges that I am a monumental liar and a stinking troublemaker. I know what I saw. Oh, one could see Mrs. Vanzant's sign while driving by it, but only when almost directly beside it. That sign WAS BLOCKED from view otherwise.
Consider this. I have just as much right to defend what I believe to be right as you do to call me nasty names.
Officer Glossup does not deserve to be the victim in the war between McAlister and Barrett. He is and has always been a great asset to the Pulaski Police force. I cannot believe that Dickey did this to him. So sad...seems like loyalty and dedication goes to the wayside under pressure by Mclister. I have nothing against McAlister...as far as I have known him to be a good man!!! But this against Glossip makes me rethink if I really know who he is. And to Dickey...shame on you!
11:25 You must have been sick at home or just had your head in your abdomen for those 24 hours. or so that the signs were placed as a "trap" as The Man has said.If it only took him 15 minutes to catch his prey ,then why was he out there for most of 2 days?Then out with his camera on Sat. after.Answer that monu"mental" liar
Mayhaps the difference between the actions of Barrett and Winkles towards their arresting officer and McAlister towards his arresting officer is ------ Guilt.
To 6:08 and 6:16
Yes once again you misunderstood yet another post. I never said I didn't set a trap I just denied provoking an illegal act by a vandal. The trap was simply videotaping the actions of a person with so little self control or such an overdose of arrogance.
After many posts whining about how I had blocked the signs of Mrs Vanzant you now state, "Mrs. Vanzant's sign was almost totally blocked from view by those of the one who started all this trouble to begin with". So were they blocked or "almost blocked"? As for starting all the trouble it seems you got your shoes on the wrong feet once again. I'm not the one running around town in a county truck spreading gossip at every opportunity. Testifying is a word you used and I certainly would not expect you to testify about anything as it usually carries an expectation of a personal knowledge of truth. Since your whole existence seems to revolve around the gossip of the fast food joints it's obvious outside of gossip you have a very limited lifestyle.
James wrote earlier that neither Fred nor I "bad-mouthed" the officer that arrested us. That's very true. What he did was done out of the honest conviction that it was his job. We had no problem with that as he did it in a professional manner. That's the way Lt. Glossup handled his job the night of the incident he was courteous, through and professional. Then came the little person with the big ego not asking but demanding that the officer be fired or at least demoted and the sad thing is that the demand was capitulated to.
This punishment should not have happened. Consider that there was a greater punishment for Lt. Glossup than there was for the officer who arrested the doctor and brought the city into a multi-million dollar lawsuit. I'm not saying that officer was wrong only that it seems the severity of the reactions by the city leadership is extremely lopsided in the two incidents
Vindictiveness, fear and lazy incompetence seems to be the operative words in describing the operations of some departments in the county and city.
Good post and example of differences in handling of cases Mr, Barrett,
Yeah Allen; well written response to the Enabler. We know she's the one behind your character assassination efforts here.
All this "I drove by there myself" mess! Any one with a little common sense can tell she's a MONUMENTAL HABITUAL LIAR, who couldn't tell the TRUTH even if the LORD JESUS, was the one questioning her!
And Like I said before, if her witness is so reliable, then why on earth didn't the hateful thing go and testify in court to what shes claiming here?
And she has the nerve to call anyone a troublemaker?
I believe she's the devil incarnate!
"Yes, Clay McAlister went out on Minor Hill Road and moved Mrs. Vanzant's sign. Now, whether Mrs. Vanzant gave him permission to do so or not is really not the point. He moved HER sign away from those put up by barrett."
NO Sweetheart; that's exactly the point! Where did he have any authority moving anyone's sign to begin with? And if Barrett's signs were so offensive to Vanzant or anyone else, why didn't they call the election commission and make a formal complaint about it?
That is the proper way to have handled that; and everyone knows it too! Including you.
Soooo, for actions in the future-----is the Pulaski Police Dept. going to post the names of individuals that our good officers should NOT enforce the laws so they won't have to run the risk of demotion or firing??
Soooo, for actions in the future-----is the Pulaski Police Dept. going to post the names of individuals that our good officers should NOT enforce the laws so they won't have to run the risk of demotion or firing??
wab
Are you wanting to split hair with me over just how blocked Mrs. Vanzant's sign was because of the onstruction you created? You know very well that her sign was only visible to motorists when they got right on it, because you had cleverly positioned yours on both sides of it. Clay only went out there and moved her sign. I drove by on the afternoon of the incident and noticed that your signs were right where they had been the day before.
If Mr. McAlister threw your signs down the bank, please explain why you contaminated the "crime scene" by putting them back where they were. I don't understand. In addition to that, why were Mr. McAlister's fingerprints not found on your signs? Was he wearing rubber gloves?
Excuse me...obstruction is the correct word. Typo.
I believe what Barrett stated was his signs were thrown down the hill and he "replaced them" that doesn't mean he put the same signs up but that signs that were his were put back in that area. Also as I read the paper it was reported that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute not that his fingerprints were not on the signs. Ask you law enforcement officer how often they find sufficient fingerprints at a crime scene. This ain't CSI are some other TV show.
I suppose by demoting a good officer, it creates room for a corrupt officer.
My understanding is that the TBI did not find Mr. McAlister's fingerprints on ANY of barrett's signs.
Is that because Mr. McAlister was wearing gloves, or was it because some police officer altered the tape? Such a conspiracy. Oh please!
4:07 What I don't understand is why you got so upset about where the signs were placed?
I don't believe anyone has answered the question of just "Who gave McAlister permission to move anyone's sign in the first place?"
And until that question has been answered satisfactorily with the answer of "Janet Vanzant" asked him to; then those(all ONE OF you)of you running interference for him, are wasting your foul breath, and looking every bit the part of liars as well!
5:53
Because of the wrongness and childishness of the situation. Should we just be silent when something like that is done?
6:00:00 PM
Well actually: yes!
Unless of course you happen to be Janet Vanzant.
And if your weren't, then what does it matter to you? You have no dog in that fight.
"Such a conspiracy. Oh please!"
Brought to you by the "Enabler" herself.
6:27
Wrong. I just don't like to see anyone bullied around. Ok?
6:35
If you insist on calling me an enabler, I have no choice but to remind you that it's a lie told on me by one who promotes strife.
I call a bully one that sticks his nose in other people's business like they are out to protect them. No they are not suppose to be the protector unless a relative.
6:38 you keep proving it's not a lie.
Was Clay getting all the attention and none left for you?
7;22
You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. But please respect mine.
Here's what I think has been the problem for quite awhile now. There's a small (very small) group of individuals in this county who want power and authority but cannot gain it because they don't have what it takes to get elected. Their arrogance and high-mindedness have caused that, and they are bitter, not wanting to assume the blame for their plight. So they find fault with those who are in elected positions, call them nasty names, and assert their intellectual "superiority" over the public in general. Anyone who disagrees with them is relegated to no more than some backwoods ignoramous or someone who is going along with or apathetic toward wrongs. They always think they know best and want to be able to tell us what to do. Thank God, that's not going to happen, but it won't stop them from kicking up all the fuss and trouble they possibly can. I'm by far not the only one who has this opinion. opinion.
7:44 Why is it whnever you are cornered you come out with this nonsense about a small bunch of people who are wanting power but cant get it without reverting to calling people names? Are you nuts or something?
8:46
You are entitled to your opinion just as I am mine. I said what I did because that's exactly how it looks to me. Listen, I've talked to lots of people around town who see it the same way I do. We see all the attacks, name-calling, and troublemaking as the real nonsense.
7:44 I don't think you are the only one that don't like the attacks but you are the only backwoods ignoramous that is posting.
To 7:44. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that, but please respect mine. Here’s what I think has been the problem for quite awhile now. There’s a small (very small) group of individuals in this county who have some power and authority but have not demonstrated the mentality or maturity to use such power and authority appropriately. By using lies, illegal maneuvers and capitalizing on the ignorance of some groups they get elected and re-elected. Their arrogance and high-mindedness have caused a total disconnect with the citizens who have become tired of paying all the bills and being treated with total disrespect. Many of those citizens have begun to question the wisdom of such things as out of control spending on unnecessary pet projects. In response those arrogant office holders declare themselves intellectually superior to those who elected them and affirm to all that they not only know what’s best for everyone they demand everyone yield to their puny vision, everyone that is except themselves and their social equals. Those who do not conform or those who dare question them are called nasty names like troublemakers; their reputations are attacked with unfounded gossip and rumors and all their vindictiveness is unleashed on them. While the citizens once were frustrated to the point of feeling helpless that frustration has turned to an anger that is fed up with being abused by a system out of control and it’s enablers. The average citizen doesn’t want to tell others how to live, what to eat, how to spend their money; they just want to be left alone to enjoy their lives. Yes, even the timid little church mouse eventually gets fed up with the continual pricks and begins to kick back. So the community becomes divided with those who enable the wrongdoing, gossiping and generalizing while the other side clearly state facts and list the misconduct in well defined terms.
6:38:00 PM said,"I just don't like to see anyone bullied around. Ok?
6:35"
And please explain as to whom is "just being bullied around".
Are you referring to Officer Glossup, or Clay McAlister?
It is, after all, getting very hard to tell just who's side your on.
9:28 PM said,
"Listen, I've talked to lots of people around town who see it the same way I do."
Meaning, all her cronies(3)at the laundry mat on south end.
But we're not ones to go round.. spreading rumors.
Actually we're just not the gossiping kind......
What a laugh!!!!
12:47
You make it sound like I run around seeking out people to "gossip with" about things that are presently going on. No, these conversations are had, with or without me, at coffee shops and other places around town. Just because people don't see it your way does not make what they say idle gossip. They have a right to their opinions just as you do.
8:13 But are they posting on the blog?
wab
You are totally delusional. Something must have happened in your life experiences to cause you to be so distrustful and resentful of those who have the authority you will never have here. It's a personal problem you need to deal with or seek professional help.
Nobody I know of has said the average citizen has no right to question government. We all have that right.
I trudst that you won't delete this post.
Has anyone but me noticed that this blog is not about Officer Glossup and his service to the city or about the injustice to what has happened to him at the hands of his superior officer? This thing about the signs and who said she said is "OVER"..let's get beyond that. Let's pull together to put a "good officer" back in the position and reputation that he has worked his whole life to build. I cannot believe that my friend Clay McAlister has not in all of his years service to the state and county has not done something that he shouldn't have done. I am not saying that he should have been dismissed or demoted..I am just saying...Clay step up and let your personal hurt feelings go. HELP TO CHANGE THE INJUSTIVE DONE TO OFFICER GLOSSUP!! This would really show the true man that I know you are!
But what about the 8injustice done to Mr. McAlister? That is important as well. I believe officer Glossup and Mr. McAlister are honorable men, so both should receive justice.
11:18 Why would your post be deleted?
You have a big problem.
I feel sure you are also 2:46, did Clay McAlister not get justic when he won his case? You think he should have revenge?
How can you take up for Janet and some Commissioners but be against Glossup? That's only defending a selected few.
3:07
Who said I was tyaking up for Janet and the commissioners? Those are your words and not mine.
No, Mr. McAlister has not had his name cleared. And it's really not over from what I near. Time will tell.
As for Mr. Glossup, I think he got a raw deal as well, but you have to remember who started all this mess to begin with.
Blame Game....does anyone get tired of all of this stuff!!
I am 2:38: if you read my original post I agree that Clay and Dean are both good honorable me. And as far as I know so is Mr. Barrett (although I have never met him). Yes, I do believe that if all allegations against "anyone" are proved false that they should receive the "justice" of having their name cleared. I do believe that as this process continues that the truth will become apparent and this will happen. My concern is that a good man that was just doing his job has taken the fall for it. I do not believe that Dean Glossup would knowingly hurt anyone's reputation or falsely accuse anyone. I truly believe that this whole thing has been blown out of proportation by the media, this blog, and the gossip mongers. I think that Captain Dickey folded and failed to stand up for his officer and that he was influenced and made a terrible decision. I hope that he will do what is honorable and reinstate Dean...and I also hope that whoever is entitled to vendication in the "Sign" lawsuit receives it. I have no anomonsity toward anyone...just compassion for Dean. I also hope that Clay and Mr. Barrett will not let this lawsuit define who they are. Show the true man that I know you are Clay..help Dean! The man has been thru enough!
3:15, sorry I thought it was over.
For 2:38:00 PM
You are exactly correct Sir. If Clay McAlister is half the man he likes us to think; he'd admit to his impropriety in this childish mess, apologize to DEAN, and to Barrett for what he knows he did, and ask forgiveness for what he has OBVIOUSLY caused in the first place.
If he did that, Dean would be reinstated as a Lt. and then I would really see him as a Man I could respect.
So what about it Clay? Are you gonna man up, or continue to hid maintain your victim hood?
Don't worry sir. I aint holdin my breath.
I think Allen Barrett needs to apologize for the entire mess. Will he ever do it? No. He doesn't know how to apologize because he thinks he never does anything wrong.
I think you need to repent to the Lord for enabling evil.
10:15
Exactly what evil have I promoted? Oh, please share.
Do you really want to continue playing this game? There is no enabler of evil if you refer to me. That is a troublemaking lie started on me by none other than the promoter of strife and discord. He truly needs to repent.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone that judges people and tells them they need to repent, that acts as bad or most times worse than those they call themselves judging. I think you need to worry about yourself and let God do the judging.
You and everyone else in here knows what evil I'm talking about. I have no specks or any other particles in my eyes; which keeps me from seeing clearly. You hide behind your righteousness, and relatives in the court house , and think it's ok to snipe at Barrett, who only wants them to consider the average citizen when making policy. He is an advocate for the people, while your an advocate for those who would run over the average citizen. The spirit he fights against is one of the devil, and that is who your enabling. I can see. We all can see!
Trying to get some people to focus on the problems in the Pulaski Police Department and other areas of our government is as hard as getting the president to focus on the problems of the world and nation instead of the NCAA basketball tournament.
The issue and focus of this thread should be whether the politicization of the police department is a good or appropriate thing. While there is no question some citizens are treated with velvet gloves, given rides home instead of to the drunk tank, avoid arrest records for vandalizing government property, allowed to avoid domestic violence charges because of connections, it is not often that one of the privileged few will come out and publicly demand the firing or demotion of a high ranking police officer with an outstanding record.
Who is running the Pulaski Police Department, those with political pull or those with the Pride, Integrity and Guts to be professional Peace Officers? Can our police officers be allowed to do their jobs without the fear generated by social and political positions? I must believe that the decision to punish Lt. Glossip at the demand of a pseudo-elitist has to taste as foul to the other outstanding officers in law enforcement as it does to me and most other citizens who have a great respect for those officers.
I call upon the police chief to immediately correct this injustice and restore Lt. Glossup to his former position and pay grade.
7:54
No, I don't hide behind my righteousness; I live mine. And if you are referring to me as one who enables wrong or evil, that is as much a lie now as it was the day the one who promotes strife and discord started telling it.
You charge that I snipe at barrett, but apparently find nothing wrong with his name-calling and attacks against those he either dislikes or resents. Why the double standard? All I ask him to do is stop trying to stir up trouble. An advocate for the people? That's a laugh.
We know you hide behind a pebble it's much bigger than your righteousness and you got a lot to hide.
There you go again denying you an enabler but not giving any reason why anybody should believe you.
There's no double standard Barrett makes what he says pretty clear while you duck and dodge with gossip and name calling just as bad only difference seems like Barrett takes responsibility for what he does.
Yes, I will deny it and call it a lie as many times as I see it posted. I've been more than clear about that. It is a lie that was told on me by one who promotes strife and discord in this county.
Do you want to continue arguing this point, or is there an issue here to be discussed? Is there anything else?
You don't want to discuss any issues. You only want to talk about Mr. Barrett. Why don't you get a life like you are always telling everyone else? You talk about what a Christian man you are, why don't you show it? You can't tell me that God condones what you are doing.
5:50
Do you think God condones one running around town telling lies on someone and calling people names. YES, I'm a Christian gentleman, and I am very proud of that.
All I want from barrett is for him to stop telling the lie that I enable wrongdoings. That is a lie.
No it isn't. It's TRUE! And your not a man either, so stop promoting that lie as well.
8:03
Is this all you want to talk about? Is there an issue other than your copnfusion over my gender?
As I said, allen barrett needs to stop telling that lie. Think what you wish about me. You're going to anyway.
Just sign me...
Christian gentleman
9:16 The way you caryy on you are not what a normal person would consider being christian. And who ever heard of a man calling himself a 'gentleman'? Only women sometimes refer to men as gentlemen. Word is hardly used anymore sweetie. If you really were a man you would refer to yourself as male.
9:28
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am in fact a Christian and glad of it. I don't mistreat my fellow man by attacking him and calling names. Nor do I run around telling lies. Would yuou call such a person as that a Christian? I don't. That person is a hypocrite.
You never heard of a man calling himself a gentleman? You're kidding, right? I am a gentleman and would say that to anyone. Why? Because that's precisely what I am.
Anyone that says and does the things that you do could "NEVER" be considered a Christian or a gentleman. Proof is in the way you live and act and you do not prove anything with the way you talk.
To 6:22 you have called more people names and spread more lies and gossip than anyone on this blog. You refuse to give reasons why what you say is true and what others say is false only keep telling how you feel. Sorry my liberal punk but reality is not dependent on how you feel. Try dealing in some truth sometimes and maybe others would have more respect for you, as it stands now you are just a self centered arrogant worm of an enabler with big thoughts about a little person.
10:02
Your name-calling is noted. By the way, exactly what names have I called anyone. What lies and gossip have I spread?
There is no enabler if you refer to me. That is a troublemaking lie started by one who seems to delight in promoting strife and discord.
Lastly, I am a Christian and a gentleman. I will continue to be that way, regardless of the names you call me.
4:36 You also promote discord.
Anytime anyone disagrees with someone it promotes discord.
At least everyone is letting Mr. Clay have a rest.
For the Enabler "extraordinaire".
"What lies and gossip have I spread?"
I thought you'd never ask. Here. Let me help you remember.
Things like, "Excuse me, but aren't you really the one principally responsible for Mr. Glossup's situation?"
And of course this one, "Furthermore, several people on the Minor Hill Highway saw the same thing I did. How do I know that? I know, because I heard them laughing about the childishness of it all.
Also there's , "I went out there and saw that Mrs. Vanzant's sign had been moved away from the ones you put on both sides of hers. I saw them. "
And let's not forget, ""Listen, I've talked to lots of people around town who see it the same way I do."
Rumors, lies and gossip. Yes I think you've covered them all right here in this very thread.
No need to thank me Mam. Just glad to help out when I can.
12:06
Look, I don't run around town taking surveys and asking people what they think. However, I am around lots of people, and YES, I hear the chatter. So what? Don't you?
NONE of the examples you gave show that I have called anyone a name. Which one shows that I have lied? None of them are lies.
Lastly, there is no enabler if you refer to me. That is an allen barrett lie, and you are promoting it. Don't you have anything better to do? Do you have anything else?
"Do you have anything else?"
As if you've given a suitable explanation for anything you were asked. HA!
Every example of your lies and rumor mongering listed by 12:06 are all great unsubstantiated garbage that you've put out here, and there is no way you can give evidence for any of it. It all amounts to nothing.
Why you small minded long tongued HICK! And you have the nerve to call anyone a trouble maker? "Christian Gentleman" my butt. How dare you stand behind the name of Christ, in an effort to destroy a man who puts his own name and reputation on the line while you spew filthy lies behind the safety of an anonymous persona. That the real mark of "Gentleman" huh?
The reason you didn't testify on behalf of McAlister, was you can't back up a single one of those lies. And everyone knows it, including yourself.
Your a pathetic cartoon rendering of a trashy uneducated Godless old woman, and it comes across loud and clear in your post. Is it any wonder that you're so loathed by decent people in this forum?
And I'll bet your not too popular in real life either. In fact I know your not.
9:51
More name-calling, I see. Oh yes, I am a Christian and a gentleman. And Christians (true Christians) do not go about calling names and stirring up trouble. Do you get my drift?
I'm not trying to destroy anyone. Can you say the same thing about a man who professes Christianity and goes about causing trouble and trying to destroy and humiliate others of his choosing? I merely point it out. And if that makes me a small-minded and long-tongued (use hyphens please) hick, then so be it.
Some people have a different idea of what a true Christian is?
12:08
Well one thing for certain is that a true Christian doesn't run around calling people namesm making false statements, and promoting strife and disharmony.
You mean like you?
4:39
No. I was referring to those who claim Christianity and then act otherwise.
Would you like to discuss Christian virtues now...or egg shells?
Only HE knows HIS true identity.
8:31
?
Those of you who keep responding with the back and forth BS are as bad as the one you have labeled the ENABLER. Just drop it!!!!No good discussion can take place because each of you want to see what bad things you can say about the other. It's nonsense and is getting nowhere with NO answers.
11:28
As long as they keep calling me that name, I will be here, the Lord willing, to call it an allen barrett lie.
What if I started a lie on a man declaring that he is a womanizer or even worse? Then I, through my silence, allow that lie to go forward when I could say something to stop it. And I would think calling someone a womanizer is about as mean-spirited accusing one of being a supporter of wrong and/or evil.
I keep wondering when there will be an issue to discuss other than me. When the lie stops, so do I.
Mr. Barrett will you please block the one carrying on this foolish, childish chatter. Then maybe the blog would get back to being informative. I appreciate what you are doing for our county. Keep up your good work.
Yes Allen, I too thank you for your blog. It gives me and other people in the county an outlet for our opinions on matters that greatly effect us.
Those like the "enabler" who regularly post here as a method to discredit your fine efforts, and belittle the opinions of other caring citizens, need to be blocked. Most of us here know who this parasite is, and feel that she needs to be shown the door, and not allowed to come back.
People like her are an ugly stain on humanity,and in our community as well. She should not be tolerated here any longer.
10:37
There is no enabler if you are referring to me. That is a troublemaking lie started by none other than allen barrett. Yes, it's a bald-faced lie, and I wish you guys 9all one or two of you)would quit trying to spread it.
And just because I defend myself and do not share you guys' views does NOT make me an uncaring citizen. On the contrary, I consider myself a good citizen who doesn't run around trying to cause someone trouble. I obey the laws, I love the Lord, and I treat my family and neighbors with respect. So...please define caring citizen?
"She should not be tolerated here anymore? Please block the one carrying on this foolish chatter"? Oh, you guys are frightening. I'm just thankful that you can't get elected to any positions of authority here in Giles County. So sad.
How do you know that one of us is not currently and elected official? Humm?
..."Those like the "enabler" who regularly post here as a method to discredit your fine efforts, and belittle the opinions of other caring citizens, need to be blocked. Most of us here know who this parasite is, and feel that she needs to be shown the door, and not allowed to come back.
People like her are an ugly stain on humanity,and in our community as well. She should not be tolerated here any longer."
When did you become a judge, jury and executioner that someone should not be tolerated any longer? You give this person a hard time and yet you are worse. I'd say take the blog down because of people like you. Your childish reactions and WANT to get back at everything makes YOU the smaller person.
I will challenge that lie anytime I am called that name. There is no enabler that I am aware of. That is a lie started by one who seems to delight in promoting strife and discord. I prefer to think of myself as a Christian gentleman.
I really don't understand why all the hate-mongering, particularly toward Mrs. Harwell. She lost and has acknowledged that, so what's the beef...unless the real anger is toward Terry, who won his race in District 7?
Thank you, 2:35.
To the enabler of wrong doing.
How is it that you say I lied about you but you don't call people names?
I have not lied about you and I have given considerable evidence in support of my statement that you are an enabler of wrongdoing. Not once have you given, stated, written or in any way given anything to disprove you those things I gave as reasons for referring to you as an enabler.
If you called someone a womanizer and gave reasons for that then that person disputed your reasons with evidence to the contrary it would be simple for the truth to be seen. Your problem, among many, is that you have no defense against the truth therefore you just whine about how it's wrong but never attempting to prove it wrong. Either show proof that I am wrong in addressing you as an enabler of wrongdoing or accept the term as accurate and stop embarrassing yourself and irritating everyone else with your senseless dribble.
wab
No, you are lying even now when you claim you didn't lie about the name you started on me. It was a lie when you said it, and it remains the same today.
I happen to be a Christian, and that alone SHOULD have been proof enough that I don't run around calling people names or enabling wrongdoings or evil. Oh, but you can't accept that, can you? And of course you can't see any arrogance in that way of thinking?
Other things that come to mind about me (tooting my own horn in self defesnse here) is gentleman, taxpaying and law-abiding citizen, and happily married father).
I sincerely hope that I have again offered proof that the lie you told is exactly what it is.
To 6:19 what does any of those things you listed have to do with you being or not being an enabler of wrongdoing. A person can easily be a Christian and still be an enabler of wrongdoing, paying for your child's cigarettes doesn't prevent you from being a Christian but it enables the child to smoke; defending yourself has nothing to do with coming to the defense of a drunk driver and protecting them from the penalty of their actions; you can pay your taxes but without demanding they not be spent on abortions you become an enabler of the abortionist; there were many law-abiding citizen that enabled the destruction of millions of Jews in the last century; a happily married father can still be an enabler of a child abuser by simply turning their head and pretending nothing is happening. There is no greater enabler of wrongdoing than the person who pretends nothing is wrong when all the evidence points to major problems.
wab
The fact that I AM one who loves the Lord and that I am a Christian refutes your lie that I run around here enabling wrongdoings. How many times do you have to be told?
I have never pretended that there is nothing wrong with our governmnet. Those are your words and not mine.
Just stop telling that lie and I will stop pointing it out. There may in fact be enablers of wrongdoings, but I am not one of them. Ok?
I can say I'm the king of England, but that don't make it so.
Let's see how you act next time Barrett starts a new thread. That will prove more what kind of person you are.
Cute little remarks like, "wab you've made another enemy" don't prove you are a Christian gentleman.
If Barrett says Janet Vanzant did something wrong, tell why what he said was wrong, then we will believe you.
I read this blog to see what's going on in Giles County you don't hear on the radio or read in the paper. I don't know who WAB is and had wondered if he was also the one called enabler and all this was just a lot of bull.
Please if Barrett post something you don't agree with tell why he is wrong.
"Christian Gentleman"? I do believe that many considered "Judas" to be the same. That is until he proved himself for what he really was. And by your enabling rants here in this blog, you've more than proved your worth as well.
4:33/4:58
I know you don't want to hear this but I am in fact a man who loves the Lord and don't mind saying I am a Christian gentleman...not Judas. Why is that so hard to accept?
I'll tell you how I'll act if barrett starts another negative thread and says something I disagree with. I will probably register my two cents worth. Isn't that what this blog is for?
Why can't you stop repeating the lie that I am an enabler? You should know by now that I won't let you get away with it, so what's the point? I have stated what I am about in the first paragraph of this post and have no need to prove anything to you. Take it or leave it, but that doesn't change a thing.
Do you have anything you want to discuss? Any issues on the horizon?
This tit for tat is so childish. Who cares who gets the last word? It sounds like children on the playground. What a waste of your time and everyone elses in having to read this stuff.
9:34
If the one or two individuals who keep repeating that lie will simply stop, the tit for tat will end. But I think they delight in this mischief.
6:14 I doubt they enjoy it any more than you do.
Saying anything doesn't make it true.
Action is what people go by.
You should say something when Barret starts a new thread, but let it be something about the thread, not what you think is a cute remark.
We need to hear both sides of the story.
A good Christian does not have to say and promote themselves as a Christian....your actions will show it. This blog does not show much Christianity and goodwill toward men!!! Instead of condemning and gossiping about everybody in Giles County..maybe a good easy reading in one's bible would be a better passtime than blogging on this site! I do not know if the people who talk and gossip on her or God fearing people...but...just saying!!!
10:15 You said: "A good Christian does not have to say and promote themselves as a Christian....your actions will show it." That is so true. Your can shout from the roof tops that you are a Christian, but who will believe it if you don't act like it.
I only know of one person on this blog has said he is a Christian, hopefully he will prove he is a good Christian by actions. Churches are full of seat warmers that are really not Christians.
10:36
Would you call running around town trying to stir up trouble, attack people, and call them names Christian activities? I don't. Do you think those things are representative of true Christianity? I don't.
6:23 Does the one you are talking about tell this blog he is a true Christian? No only you.
I don't know that Barrett runs around town trying to stir up trouble. All I know is he posted on this blog.
I've often wondered what you would do if this blog was closed down.
When has Barrett called anyone other than a public official a name or even discussed any private behavior of private citizens?
When have you seen him running around town and how is it you know so much about what he is trying to do?
You are such a hypocrite and liar.
1:12
He has no business calling anyone names.
3:56 If Barrett calls anyone a name have will have to answer to God not you!!
4:48
You are right. He will definitely have to answer to God.
6:30 So will you and me.
6:42
Absolutely. I never said we wouldn't be held accountable.
To 6:23 Dude the point is you are an enabler not God. If calling a person a liar and showing proof is wrong then Barrett is guilty. So far I haven't seen him call anyone a name he didn't justify with a set of facts which you haven't even attempted to disprove. So proof or shut up people are tired of your whining about Barrett and everything else with out any facts. Grow up.
Dude
There is no enabler if you are referring to me. That is a lie started by allen barrett, and it looks like we will have to do all this over again. So be it. When the lie stops, I will quit pointing it out. Again, that's a lie.
Do you have anything else? Is your life so dull that drama is all you have?
Drama seems to be all you have.
I feel like the one that said they just as soon hear you complaining about being called the e word as what you've been posting.
3:56 Who appointed you judge of what people are called?
Who appointed you judge of Giles County?
10:33
I thought the County Judge was John Damron, but I could be wrong. Regardless, I have never been appointed to any judgeship anywhere. All I am saying is that it is horribly hypocritical for anyone professing to be a Christian to be engaged in calling people nasty names, particularly in public. That pretty much destroys the credibility of the guilty party, wouldn't you think?
10:48
"All I am saying is that it is horribly hypocritical for anyone professing to be a Christian to be engaged in calling people nasty names, particularly in public"
For a "christian gentleman" seems you have no problem calling Barrett a liar and contradicting your own words, "There is no enabler if you are referring to me. That is a lie started by allen barrett", without giving any evidence to prove it is a lie. Seems like the hypocrite may actually be a "christian gentleman?". Excellent revelation.
10:48 You're the only one on the blog that is trying to make people think he is a Christian gentleman. I question if you are a christian or gentleman. That don't mean I think you are a woman. You are a male.
10:48 I am the one asked who appointed you judge. I also thought Damron was the county judge, but you seem to think you are the one to judge people in Giles County.
What I should of said is you are not God, he will judge us, it's not up to you.
11:09
Wrong again. I said I didn't know for sure who the judge is. Furthermore, I stated that I have never been appointed judge anywhere. More importantly, I don't want to be anybody's judge. Hope this helps clear up some of your misunderstandings.
Are you not judging wab and a few others?
Rainy day so nothing to do but post. Would be better reading the Bible.
1:08
Yes, it seems I am posting in response to your many entries today. Perhaps we both should be reading the Bible. What do you think?
Hey enabler: you got anything else? LOL! Any issues on the horizon sweetie? How's the weather out on the east end today?
5:49
I can't speak for Mrs. Harwell, but I will tell you assuredly that there is no enabler if you are referring to me. That happens to be a lie started by allen barrett, and it needs to stop.
I take it that you guys (all one or two of you) are continuing to drink the kool-aid. You really need a job.
if you think glossup is such a great upstanding cop then you need to ask some of the older cops. Oh yea there aint none. Glossup is so low down that he left a good woman who was pregnant with his kid to shack up with his Lt. daughter, Bobby barnes daughter. He abandoned his family to secure a cushiony job. Now thats integrity at its best.
How can you say such a thing about Officer Glossup. Were you there to witness such or you just making up terrible lies. You can be liable for such defamation so you better be real careful what you say.
7:56
That was a terrible thing to to say about officer Glossup. Even if it were true, it's low-down mean to post it here for the entire community to read.
If I know that someone is gay, does that give me the right to broadcast it all over town? NO! I have on at least a couple of occasions made this same statement to allen barrett who more or less dismissed the argument. But neither he nor officer Glossup would appreciate this kind of trash and smear.
Now this is the kind of post that is inflammatory and potentially dangerous. It needs to be deleted immediately.
This blog needs to be deleted as well.
TO the purveyor of malicious gossip about Dean Glossup;
You know, I don't know Dean's past. But what does it have to do with how he's being treated now, concerning the matter at hand? Does it have any bearing what so ever on this particular subject? NO. I didn't think so.
Enabler: this is your post. It wreaks of you, and it's as mean spirited as anything you've ever said on here.
Careful ole girl; the same judgment you use on others will be leveled at you as well.
9:25
That's a lie. I never said one word against Dean Glossup. He is a fine man who doesn't deserve the smears. In fact, 8:33 is MY post. Go read it. I typed it this morning before I left for church services. I even suggested that the inflammatory post be deleted because of the potential harm and hurt it could cause his family. It's still up for all to see. Shameful. May I have you apology? I won't hold my breath.
I can't speak for Mrs. Harwell since I am not her, but there is no enabler if you are referring to me. That is a lie allen barrett maliciously started on me. I would rather you address me as a Christian gentleman. Thank you.
When you act like a christian gentleman you'll be referred to that way until then you'll just be the enabler of evil becuase you act like one.
7:48
There is no enabler of wrong (or evil) if you are referring to me. That is a lie started by allen barrett, and it needs to stop.
You can laugh at me all you want, but I am a follower of the Lord, and that is the main reason his lie is exactly that...a lie.
Those who know me and who truly matter in my life know what kind of person I am.
To 9:25
first of all, I had no idea about Officer Glossup's past. However, if 7:56's statements are true, I beg to differ with you. Officer Glossup having an affair and leaving his family for another woman has everything to do with this matter and any other matter concerning his position as a public servant for the city of Pulaski. Leaving your family to start another family is not only a sin, "adultry" for those who are not familiar with the 10 commandments, but it is a definate character trait of a person who is unable to be responsible, truthfull and most of all, dependable. Yes, I said truthful because if his current wife was pregnant when he left her for another woman, odds are he did not fore warn her he was about to have an affair before the affair started so, in the words of Alex Trabeck on Jeopardy, Ill take 500 on ways to be deceitfull to your wife.
11:26
Please. Juast let it go, Ok? I'm sure we all all have skeletons in our closets. And since you don't know the entire story, why don't you just leave it alone and not throw fuel on the fire?
This is a classic example of why posts need to remain anonymous. It also shows how potentially dangerous and hurtful inflammatory remarks such as yours can be. Please do NOT take this as a threat, but these are the kinds of things people are killed over. I mentioned this at one point to allen barrett, and he accused me of threatening him. That is NOT the case. I'm just concerned that one of these days someone is going to get hurt because of the smut that's posted on this blog. It ought to closed down before anything like that happens.
You know what? I think a very small faction of people are angry at Dean Glossup because he made the statement that he was pressured into the story he initially told about the sign caper. And these are the very people who defend the one who started this mess to begin with. Absiluteky unbelievable.
Typo. Absolutely.
wab
I trust that you will delete the inflammatory posts made about Dean Glossup. You know good and well that this is not right. I'll be watching to see if you do. If you don't, you know I will be here, the Lord willing, to point it out.
I do not believe one word of the malicious things that were said about officer Glossup, because I am fairly certain why they were said.
Perhaps this situation will refresh your memory about the time I told you that just because we know something doesn't give us the right to go broadcasting it.
to 632
If someone makes a statement that is a fact and absolute truth which was as it pertains to Glossup, then the statement in no way is defamation of character, instead it is called the cold hard truth. And another thing, when someone wishes to tell a truthful statement about someone, that person is protected by the first amendment, freedom of speech, therefore there is no legal or civil recourse available. So the lesson here is, yes we may all have skeletons in our closet but nothing garentees you security in keeping these skeletons hiden. The best way to avoid the entire mess is to no do anything that you are not willing to have the whole world exposed to knowing about. Most importantly, when you become a public official or work for the government, your life on and off duty is supposed to be held to a higher standard than the average citizen. If you will take the time to notice, recovering crackheads and petiphiles normally do get hired or remain on the force very long after their past has been exposed.
11:50
Why am I not surprised that the blogmaster did not remove the filth posted about Dean Glossup?
Question. According to your examples of those held to a higher standard, why wouldn't that same principle be applicable to one professing to be a minister?
TO 11:26pm
"Officer Glossup having an affair and leaving his family for another woman has everything to do with this matter"
Well I suppose you'd be right, if our county was the agency of a religious organization. But fortunately for Dean (and many many others here): that's not the case at all.
As for your contention that what he may have done in his past; (leaving a wife,for another woman) provides reason enough for you to question his character, I'd like to remind you that there are many causes for something like that, and they all don't necessarily have anything to do with the man being unable to control himself sexually. But if that were the case (which I doubt), Dean has proved himself in the eyes of those who know him, to be a fine man, and an excellent officer. When you've assumed perfection, then you'll be better able to bring up the past sins of others, and level your own version of your justice. But until then, your simply reinforcing the main reason for why I, and millions of others refuse to attend Church.
It's not that we don't love the LORD GOD. Rather it's the fact we can't stand being around self righteous folks like you.
wab
Well, I see you did not delete the terrible things said about Dean Glossup. WHY NOT? Those posts would not be here today had they been about you. Shameful.
Maybe Barrett is waiting for someone to say they aren't true. Are they?
Free speech means you can say anything you want to.
I'm sorry Mr. Golssup I don't know you and mean you no harm, just posting to the enabler. I hate what has happen to you.
11>08
There is no enabler if you are referring to me. That is a lie started by allen barrett, and you just can't seem to let it go.
As for Mr. Glossup, I have been on his side from the start and I am also the one who asked barrett to delete the very harmful posts about his personal life. But, he didn't delete them. Do you not find that a bit troubling?
6:31 Was you on Mr. Glossup'a side when he arrested Mr. McAlister?
When he got demoted?
The enabler is a D... liar. It's is his enabling that has caused people like Glossup to suffer under the abuse of those the enabler supports.
McAlister is just one part of the problem so is the enabler they're both just the manipulators who think they're not being manipulated. I think the right word is stooge.
10:19
No, the one who has continued to accuse me enabling wrongdoing is the liar...not me.
I have always been on Dean Glossup's side in this matter. Do you recall what he said (in the newspaper) that he was pressured into arresting Mr. McAlister? Is he now being "punished" for making that statement? Just asking. Do you not find it a bit troubling that the malicious things said about Dean have not been removed from this blog? Can you not see how this could destroy the man's home? Again, is he being punished?
I have been reading this and was wondering about something. Could Officer Glossup sue the owner of this blog?
10:31 Dont think so. Blog owner is not responsible for poster's point of view.
10:31 Barrett provides the blog but is not responsible for its contents. suing is like playing poker anyone can play just put your money down but that don't mean you win.
11:47
I beg to differ with you. When he (barrett) is made aware of the horrific allegations made about Dean Glossup, it IS his responsibility to delete them off. Do you not understand that those posts can cause the break-up of Mr. Glossup's home? Would you get a better grasp of the gravity of this situation were those remarks made about you or your spouse? Think about it and join me in asking the blogmaster to remove those posts.
If those remarks can break up a home then that relationship was already in deep trouble.
If the remarks were true don't you think everyone involved would already know and if it's not true do you really think the family would pay any attention to it?
3:24
Oh, please tell me you know better than what you just said. Who appointed you the judge of Mr. Glossup's relationship with his wife? Do you really think remarks such as have been allowed to stay on this blog for several days can caudse no harm? Do you see any good in them? Unbelievable!
How can ANYONE say this blog is not a source of troublemaking?
He's apparently mad at Dean and therefore, may have decided that he must be punished, even if it means the break-up of his home. Isn't that a shame? It's a high price for revenge.
If Ltg. Glossup has already left his wife, why is what being said going to break him and his wife up?
Did I read the post wrong that Enabler wants deleted?
3:16
Dean has not left his wife, and it is beyond me why you people in9sist on trying to stir up trouble and cause pain that you would not want for yourself. And I would think that even an "outspoken man of integrity and common sense" would at least believe in the Golden Rule.
3:16
I am the one that lie was told on by allen barrett. I don't enable wrong, consciously or unconsciously, and I would appreciate it if you would stop keeping this stirred up.
Yes, I think barrett should delete the posts about Dean's personal life. He wouldn't tolerate them if they were about his own personal life. I'm wondering why those posts have been left on this blog. Don't you find it troubling that they are still here? Yes, I believe barrett is mad at Dean and therefore thinks he needs to be punished. Just an opinion is all.
Sorry, I read the post as he had left his wife. The poster never should of posted something he didn't know was true.
I still don't see the difference in that post and clay wanting Dean fired or demoted. One will hurt Dean as much as the other one.
Post a Comment
<< Home