Consider standing in Wokingham Borough Council elections

Your community needs you. And you ARE remunerated. Please share.

Some more local borough elections are coming up in May.
Do you ever complain about how things are run in the area? School places, congestion, over development, flooding, seemingly astronomically large contracts with no break down in costs?

Here is your chance to make a difference, in your spare time and get paid around £8k/year for the privilege before expenses and double or triple that if the leader of the council awards you, and you accept, responsibilities.

Local politics has become much like national politics in that a few cliques of politicians monopolise a role that was intended to be shared around regular members of the wider community.

This is not an administrative role, or rather should not be, it is a common sense, decency and representative role.

I wonder how many of you have been told that you will soon be able to stand for election as a Borough councillor? There is an election every year in 1/4 of the boroughs wards with each term lasting 4 years, of course you can stand down sooner.

It is amazing something so important and interesting is never promoted in the local press, no letter in the relevant wards until it is too late to stand. The establishment benefiting from poor information.

So lets put an end to crony politics.

All you SHOULD need is some good ideas and sign up to www.SMART-voter.org

Here are some ideas of measures you might call for and support that money backed / protectionist politicians won't.

• Following Erick Pickles guidelines on filming public meetings, including planning and scrutiny and all public forums.


• No-Fracking or supporting leaders who will appoint councillors who won't commit to same into planning committee.


• Council must record the audio in all its public meetings and made available online for 10 years. (Our minutes are not verbatim and some contentious material goes missing)


• Scrutiny panel to be selected at random from councillor pool with the right of refusal.


• No residential development area where primary schools are oversubscribed until a new school is built.


• No open space development unless conditions stipulates full down stream flooding mitigation as well as all necessary infrastructure and roads with cycle lanes.


• Dedicated space for an A3 poster for each candidate outside polling booths.


• Random order black and white A5 space / candidate booklet sent out with polling cards, council funded.


• Big posters outside supermarkets and in town centre for two weeks 2 months before the elections inviting people to stand as a local councillor.


• Poster space and two weeks before elections with equal space for each candidate.

Candidates will be invited to partake in a filmed live debate to be shared on www.youtube.com/wokinghamvoice.

After that, amongst yourselves you can choose someone with similar views to form a coalition so that the popular vote is not split and the 10% do not retain control by default.

Only about 20% of people vote locally because they are disenfranchised with politicians and the corporate machines or developers that drive their campaigns. The 80% are waiting to vote for a real person like you!

Now you can prove it. Now you have a voice.

If you are still interested then please read on. I'm happy to help and act as an agent. You can contact me through twitter @Kaz4Wokingham or Facebook Kazek Lokuciewski.


The wards that are up for Wokingham Borough Council Elections on 22 May 2014.
Borough Wards:

• Arborfield


• Bulmershe and Whitegates


• Coronation


• Emmbrook


• Evendons


• Finchampstead North


• Finchampstead South


• Hawkedon


• Hillside


• Loddon


• Maiden Erlegh


• Norreys


• Remenham


• Wargrave and Ruscombe


• Shinfield South


• South Lake


• Swallowfield


• Winnersh


• Wokingham Without

You need to hand in your application on a working day between 14th of April and 4pm on Thursday 24 April 2014.

Application Form. You need 10 voters from the ward to nominate you (they can still vote for someone else). If you are just going to stand and use www.smart-voter.org and local media to promote yourself then you do not need an agent.


----------update---------------------------------------------
I'm going to stand in Evendons. I've included some justification and started working on my promise list. http://kaz4wokingham.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/leading-by-example-standing-as-borough.html
----------update---------------------------------------------
I seem to be driving the council into a little action again. http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/news/index/mar2014/councillor/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Superfluous info for nerds

Official timescales

Government guidance

Some case studies

What is the cost of corrupt cronies running the council, how can people with less time, resources challenge them? 


http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/elections/candidates/

www.youtube.com/wokinghamvoice

www.smart-voter.org

Wokingham Borough Council David Allen filming e-mail exchange 28th Janurary

Dear Kaz,

Your Wokingham Voice video footage of the North Wokingham Community Forum on Monday January 20 has been edited to include a slide referring to fracking that is on screen for the first minute of the video. This is misleading as no mention of fracking was made at the meeting and it is also contravenes the protocol (attached), under which you are permitted to film these meeting, which states: ‘Video footage of the public meeting should be published unedited and in its entirety’.
Would you please remove the slide and confirm that you will be not be editing footage recorded at meetings in future.
Yours,
David
David Allen
Partnership Development Officer
Wokingham Borough Council

----------------------------------------

Hi David.
When was in it's entirety added? Editing this down into key points is what will make them accessible. Few of your constituents are able to sit through 3 hours. This is an important part of transparency "Information prepared in a manner suitable for consumption". This is irrelevant at the moment but not in future since people may only film segments (as did the BBC for the Extraordinary meeting) they did not film or provide in its entirety, they were not misleading.

The text from the contract I saw originally was 'Not to Be misleading"
And I accept that the wording I used originally might suggest that Fracking was approved in this meeting so I have changed it.

While this is technical jargon that text is an 'Annotaion' I kind on comment you can displays over the video and can be changed on a whim. I have changed this to make sure that the issues I have 'Advertised on My Channel' over unedited video while the introductions are being made to consumers who are interested in local governance do not suggest anything is being suggested in this video.
If the council can offer a solution to the Fracking issue I am happy to do an interview.
Regards
Kaz

David Allen (communications) 

to me, Andrea
-------------------------------------------

Dear Kaz,

Thanks for your reply.

The key issue is the text (annotation) added to the broadcast of this forum and, while I appreciate you making the change, we must ask you again to remove all extraneous comment/text from these films. My understanding is that you film and broadcast these meetings in order to increase transparency and improve the public’s understanding of the issues - but adding any comment,  description or advertising of other issues is counterproductive to those aims as it is potentially misleading and confusing. It also contravenes the protocol that requires there be ‘no editing’ - and the fact is that fracking was not discussed at this forum and should, therefore, not form any part of your broadcast of it.
We can deal with the issue of ‘entirety’ at a later date as there is a difference between the BBC (or anybody else) using a brief video clip of a meeting without sound to illustrate a news story and you (or anybody else) recording and broadcasting what has actually been said – in which case we do require it to be in entirety.
Yours,
David
David Allen
Partnership Development Officer
Wokingham Borough Council



------------------------------

Kazek Lokuciewski
Jan 28 to David

Ill have to look into this. Eric Pickles was most ckear that bloggers would be able to make short clips and make comments.
I'm happy to remove this text from here and add it to blogg like edits where,  without misleading,  I dicuss issues and include relevent clips as evidence, each clip eith an annotation that links to the full master, but I will beed assurence that you are not attempting to block me publicizing any issue I feel should be discussed. That planning and scruitiny us still being blocked to me should that the full council are in breach if their constitution. It would be unwize if someone unfinaced such as myself to allow a powerfull organisation to decide on things they have no right to decide. The statement is not misskeading. I have advertised a transparency problem and solution.  In this instance you will have to find an elected councillor to take responsibility for the request and explain why it is not in breach if Eric Pickles guidelines and transparancy constitution.
-------------------------------------------

Andrea Jenkins  Jan 29 (8 days ago)

to me, David

Dear Kaz

Yesterday we asked you to remove a slide on your Wokingham Voice video footage of the North Wokingham Community Forum on Monday January 20 as it was a breach of our protocol.  You had added commentary which could lead to misinterpretation of the proceedings and this is clearly explained in the protocol that this is unacceptable.

You have not removed it, and instead have replaced it with further commentary. As a result of this, we are withdrawing the permission granted to you to film at tonight’s South Wokingham Community Forum. 

We are currently reviewing the position of filming community forum meetings including whether we undertake filming directly ourselves.

Regards
Andrea

Andrea Jenkins
 Strategic Communications Lead


------------------------------------


Kazek Lokuciewski

Jan 29 (8 days ago)to Andrea


The commentary is in not way misleading. I actually thought the southern one was  Monday and thought I had missed it.

Kazek Lokuciewski <kazek.lok@gmail.com> 

Jan 29 (8 days ago)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
to Andrea


Regarding filming yourselves I have requested this over a year ago and offered to pay for the equipment. If you do not film yourself and share the material in full then you do not really have a leg to stand on when I have a civil right to film matters of public interest in a public place.
I agreed to your rules since they were and still are sensible. I have using my efforts to promote democracy and in no way have mislead the public and fortunately the law is on my side. Your rules require that for filming to be not allowed it must be by a councillor who explains why it is clearly in the publics best interest that the information is not shared.
Failing that someone may film tonight.

There is no legal reason not to film. There is the expectation to allow filming and editing and comments.

Department for Communities and Local Government
3/J1 Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU

Our Ref: ER/001412/14
Your Ref:
31 January 2014

Dear Mr Lokuciewski

Thank you for your email of 10 January to the Secretary of State about filming at planning
meetings. I am replying as I work in the team that is responsible for the policy on access
to council meetings.

I am pleased to hear that your Council allows filming at public meetings. However as
local authorities are independent of the central government and are directly accountable
to their local people, I cannot comment on why your Council does not allow filming
at planning meetings. The Government message is, councils should adopt maximum
transparency and openness by embracing the filming of their public meetings by members
of the public. Therefore, planning committees like any other council committees should
be opened to the public so that the proceedings can be reported. Also, section 3.5 of the
Procedural Guide- Planning appeals – England, issued in October 2013, explains the
openness and transparency planning appeal hearings.

Here is the link to the guide:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/procedural_guide_planning_appeals.pdf

You may also wish to know that the Local Audit and Accountability Bill became law
yesterday and section 40 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to make
regulations that may allow local people including citizen journalists to attend public
meetings of the local government bodies listed under section 40(6) of the Act and report
the proceedings by using various communication methods such as filming, tweeting and
blogging. This is a significant change in favour of openness and transparency, as, once
the secondary legislation is made, councils and other local bodies will be compelled to
allow members of the public to film or tweet at their public meetings.
In view of this, I suggest that you contact your Council to ascertain how their decision to
prevent the filming of planning meetings reflects the recent changes.

Yours sincerely

Tayo Peters

Democracy

Who hates politicians who will not answer a simple question? Guy Grandison, is that what you are?

Get used to this people. Your typical everyday 'politicians' will imply they have reservations but make sure you are not given enough information to make an informed democratic decision at voting time.

It is a simple question with three very simple likely options.

I will vote against Fracking.

I will make my own decision when I have the information.

I will call for a borough a referendum when we have the information and failing that vote in-line with a ward referendum.


And while we are at it Cllr Guy Grandison, who is signed up to supporting maximum transparency wherever possible (which video very much is about complete transparency) whether you were lying or mistaken this misinformation has cost your constituents the ability to look back over the actions of people responsible for negotiating contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

If you will not put it right, will you at least have the integrity to tell you constituents when you ask them to vote for you that you think they should not have the right?

http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/councillors/search/?entryid20=25691&q=5077225%7eguy%7e

-----------------------------------------

Department for Communities and Local Government
3/J1 Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU

Our Ref: ER/001412/14
Your Ref:
31 January 2014

Dear Mr Lokuciewski

Thank you for your email of 10 January to the Secretary of State about filming at planning
meetings. I am replying as I work in the team that is responsible for the policy on access
to council meetings.

I am pleased to hear that your Council allows filming at public meetings. However as
local authorities are independent of the central government and are directly accountable
to their local people, I cannot comment on why your Council does not allow filming
at planning meetings. The Government message is, councils should adopt maximum
transparency and openness by embracing the filming of their public meetings by members
of the public. Therefore, planning committees like any other council committees should
be opened to the public so that the proceedings can be reported. Also, section 3.5 of the
Procedural Guide- Planning appeals – England, issued in October 2013, explains the
openness and transparency planning appeal hearings.

Here is the link to the guide:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/procedural_guide_planning_appeals.pdf

You may also wish to know that the Local Audit and Accountability Bill became law
yesterday and section 40 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to make
regulations that may allow local people including citizen journalists to attend public
meetings of the local government bodies listed under section 40(6) of the Act and report
the proceedings by using various communication methods such as filming, tweeting and
blogging. This is a significant change in favour of openness and transparency, as, once
the secondary legislation is made, councils and other local bodies will be compelled to
allow members of the public to film or tweet at their public meetings.
In view of this, I suggest that you contact your Council to ascertain how their decision to
prevent the filming of planning meetings reflects the recent changes.

Yours sincerely

Tayo Peters

Democracy

------------------------------------------------

DO NOT vote for ideologies sold to you by the marketing team. Research your candidate!

Want to know why the entire world is racking up debt and the Rothschild's and Rockefellers are raking it in? Us voting for dishonest people.

Lets take a simple, local example of dishonest politics. The Gay Marriage Bill. Probably 80%+ of the population in favour and to those people a complete no brainer.

This also true of Wokingham.

Lets therefore look at how our Tory MP voted on the bill. Yes, we have a voice, a man who represents our views and his name is John Redwood. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346694

Funnily enough, while I think someone who can vote in favour of discrimination should be banned from public office for life, I do respect his action. I have little time for the Redwoods of this world but at least they don't pretend to stand for something else.

Our local Tory Cllrs on the other hand, or rather the PR and marketing team. Well look just at this.

Here we have the Wokingham and Reading Conservatives PR team trying to mop up the dump burger Redwood handed them. Their mission seems to be to trick the public that, thanks to the Tories and their local MPs, gays have the right to be married.

Most decent people, were they to be aware of the facts would conclude these people are liars.

Why did they not leave the party in distain seeing it for what it is?

Surely produce some kind of formal apology for their parties overall action and call for a change of leadership?

How about that, on a personal level, they are supporters? If that were the primary motivation they would have turned up without the Tory paraphernalia.

This is like a Nazi who personally thinks the war is wrong, but knows his Hitler's intent, turning up at a Jewish pride parade waving a swastika and saying vote for Hitler anyway. It makes no sense. But we vote without using our sense, we vote for the most attentive salesman. And that is why money wins votes.

These people are there, on mass, on a weekend, not assaulting Tory HQ with their disgust, they are assaulting unwitting voters with white lies. WHY?

The great Tory champion Paul Swaddle (Now OBE) was there, he is still refuses to unblock  filming of public planning and scrutiny meetings which is clearly against the local council constitution on supporting transparency. Then again Wokingham Borough Councils democratic services team have refused to act upon it. Not even a denial or excuse. Just technicalities.

So now I have two cases of clear conduct that I believe 50% of the population would not stoop to and an OBE. (Paul I will update my blog with your defence you will finally stop sidestepping this important issue)

What motives are there for people of questionable character to seek positions of public trust at a local level?

Wokingham borough council has allowed Wokingham Town Centre to run down and then suddenly plan to take out a £100m loan to pay one company to do what appears to  many to be about £50m of competitively priced work of which £30m is unwanted by the community. The specific details and break down of costs are always hidden. All the hall marks of Jobs for the Boys.

We are also dishing out planning permissions on farm land to developer and speculative land owners. These planning permissions alone are worth perhaps £800m and we seem to be expecting less than £200m in return.

What motives are there at a national level? John Redwood in parliament. What are his potential vested interests in being in the heart of international financial law and international trends?

In 1979 the Iron lady freed the banks and capital control and the great money multiplier started to work. Private Bankers had the ability to lend great multiples of what they owned and then lend again against the resulting inflation of those same assets. In real terms the capital reserve of UK banks is now 3%.That means if they have lent out £100 they have £3 in reserve. To make that £6 half of UK liquidity would have to disappear, alternatively we have quantitative easing, stealing from the all therefore mostly the rich, BUT . . we gave back entirely to the super rich. People like the Rothschild's.

 

 

 

So people PLASE! Stop voting for the team sending out the most nice sounding attentive people.

Do not vote Tory for a belief in the market economy, rewarding hard work and making people earn their keep, because most parties believe this too. That is not what conservatism means.

Conservatism means privatisation to increase efficiency. If you do not want schools, NHS, defence, police running workers to the edge of their health limits then do not vote for that ideology. Conservative does not actually mean reward hard work? Do you think a family property trust fund rewards hard work 4 generations later? No it takes from workers and gives to privileged.

The good news is that even some active Conservatives do not really know what it means and, like with any religion, see the danger of fanaticism.


At the same time our official Left is also right of centre. There seem to be few leaders in the Labour party with a tendency towards even centralist governance let alone left wing.

I'm not asking you not to vote Tory.

I'm asking you to research the individuals who are standing and to consider standing yourself, with an open mind to the idea forming a coalition and stepping back supporting someone willing to make similar commitments to you so as not to dilute the popular vote, do not fight for you to win, but for changes that will get the vested interests out of politics. Until we have fewer vested interests in politics we are simply swimming in quick sand. All other issues will be overly hard fought and recur again and again unless we fix the route cause.

Truly researching a candidate is impossible, a history check takes time and can be riddled with lies so lets make life simple for ourselves.

Tell your candidates that you need them to be SMART-voter.org friendly. This gives you the ability compare them simply on committed pre-conceived solutions and ignore the material their PR team ejected from the back end of a male cow.

No one you should want in politics should object. What kind of candidate would refuse you a list of contents and a money back guarantee?
Third hand pleasant anecdotes is no way to select the person charged with giving our children a better chance of fulfilment in life than we had. 

Lets at least try and solve this peacefully.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Note.

I'll be standing in Evendons as an Independent.

http://kaz4wokingham.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/leading-by-example-standing-as-borough.html

------------------------------------------------------------------


 

Is there institutional corruption at Wokingham Borough Council?

Are Wokingham Borough's Tory Council burying important facts within mountains of superfluous material, getting in the way of transparency al the while saying they are transparent and insisting possibility of corruption is absurd? Why,

Lets make one thing very clear.

1. It is easy to get money to someone in an invisible manner. Thanks to John Redwood hard work in the late 70s and early 80s this is now an unlimited amount.

2. A 20% more expensive quote to someone with an arrangement with would be impossible to argue against with the 80% quality 20% price purchasing policy. One would only need to presume an established 'Friend' offers better quality.

There are a few things we can look out for though that would highlight the cronies from the contentious (who need not be in a majority, just trusting).

This could be:

Any obstruction to transparency, for example refusing to provide the information relating to price negotiations and large contracts.

Making contract documentation requirements impossible for normal trade that serve public to undertake (they can help their friends).

Blocking filming at mandatory public meetings so that minutes can be selective.

Refusing to hold candid discussions that are recorded.

Signing pre-planning agreements to reach a 'To Far to Stop' situation before residents can get involved.

Putting up wide angle idyllic imagery of an open space that has been landscaped in an area where the  supermarket / hotel is going to be built.

Not putting up clear schematic of plans for an area so that public become active and involved early on.

Never talking about congestion or primary school spaces when building more houses in the regeneration.

Allowing the Town Centre (Evendons) Regeneration executive from Riseley to stand as the parish Councillor in Evendons miles from his home but where the regeneration opposition is thus introducing a vested interest in the person who is allowed to speak at council meetings on behalf of locals

Not sharing any contract financial information on the grounds of  'Commercial sensitivity' even though councils are required to share a break down of what they spend on what retrospectively.

Having contract's where the sums simply do not add up.

£2m to do less than build seven flats on land we own.
£180k average build cost / dwelling for 55 properties average 3 bed semi. On land we own.
£5m for a science block ha;f the size of a £2m office on Molly Millars, on land we own.

Appointing own scrutiny panel.

And now, in an added twist our councils democratic services are not enforcing constitutionally mandated transparency and eliminated related comments from the minutes on the grounds that 'it did not follow protocol'

A councillor is supposed to be a volunteer. You may know some real volunteers yourself. School governors, various local senior positions in charities such as the NCT. Would these volunteers act so? These people are often cagouled into helping

In our council have volunteers doing the leg work and hiding information, fighting tooth and nail for the right to do so.

The role is supposed to foremost a typical member of the public.

We need honest people willing to do less, get less involved in the paper work, and appoint paid people to break down the salient information.

I can only prey the majority of the hard working honest members of the council start to look carefully at what potentially worm tongued leaders are presenting as 'usual practice'.

It may only be 'ususal practice' because they have been at it for so long.

Whatever their motive, make sure cronies find it harder to sneak under the radar.

www.nocheappromises.org

If you want to see how public records are not. Here is me telling the executive that they are in breach of the constitution for opposing transparency, them not addressing that issue, and evidence of democratic services removing my statement from the minutes.

Watch is on youtube for resource links and to make comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZ5qg1SC7I&feature=c4-overview&list=UU2OSu9GDwgroe3tgjc8D9NQ

Question to the Execuitive . . failed.

I made a request to ask a question of the executive a month ago and asked if permission to film would be given.

Both were agreed.

Today I got to ask my question. Cllr David Lee was ill so Rob Stanton stood in and I was impressed by his chairing. Disspointed I was not allowed to express the reasoning behind my concerns but he let it go on for a while.

My Question.

Why have planning and scrutiny meetings been left off the list of those that may be filmed by the public?

If the Council is concerned about misrepresentation then this is true of any meeting. They can arrange for the filming to be recorded themselves. If you choose not to then have the added benefit your legally protected from misrepresentation and have the means to publicise against those that do. 

The public however have no evidence, save the proceeding of these meetings should they feel that Cllrs have said one thing and done another. At present the minutes go through weeks of approval and I have noticed missed out disconcerting points from public forums.

I was going to add a link to the verbatim minutes. But since they are far from verbatim I have just provided a link to the video. Run this in another window and read on. Links to the agenda and minutes are in the video description. 

http://youtu.be/mrZ5qg1SC7I

The response was as expected. They are nervous and thinking about it.

I ab libbed a bit at the beginning of my response. I was in the presence of a group of people controlling probably 3 billion pounds worth of development who were effectively reducing transparency until after the deals have been made!

Non-verbatim minutes and scrutinized by those of their choosing? No. I simply reminded them they they are obligated under the constitution to support transparency unless is it clearly in the public interest not to do so, badly as you will see in the video.

My action planned follow up question.

"I have made no effort to hide that I fear there are corrupt relationships between the local elected and employed council and local businessmen specifically developers. (pause)

I guess corruption is a hard word. Some may simply call it jobs for the boys or helping a friend. Nether the less there is no way of proving intent or otherwise, and this is not good for democracy.

There is most definitely motive.

Outside of creating and controlling government contracts the primary motive is the value of the land increasing when permission is granted to build. Taking that increase at an average of 100 thousand pounds per dwelling, and with 13 thousand dwellings"

This is about where I got cut off. Not in a rude way bust asked if there was a question and I stated that I have four constitutional proposals that I would ask them to support. They said I can submit them tomorrow in some way. I'll update this when I can reference the video. And regarding the point that they are constitutionally bound to support further transparency the answer was a repeat of the first and did not actually touch on that point.

This is what I did not get to ask.

" in in the SDl’s alone that is £1.3 billion pounds of motive to ensure the local community do not get the lion share and most definitely ensure that the national policy for house building does not result in, present value compulsory purchases of their family and friends speculative assets.

But how would I provide ROI as a crony councillor other than deciding who can look at the contracts.

Firstly I would make consultations uninteresting. This can be achieved with word only invitations that do nothing to engage the reader or expose that which might be objectionable, to put up no large poster on the Wellington House displaying what was being considered back in 2007 and provide no advance notice of planning change on Elms field.

Secondly. Anyone interested enough to find their way to the dreary consultation website should be presented with an illogical bombardment 1000’s of pages of pdfs with no single concise or engaging summary.

Then I will bury the evidence and draw conclusions that have no bearing on what was said.

I may even ask a friend, to ask a question in public, at a key moment designed to imply support where there is none.

Yes. Were I earning my crony keep this is how I would do it.

I therefore ask my follow up question. Will you support these constitutional changes that will reduce the impact of cronies in local government if any should ever get in.

1.To call for and vote in favour of a motion that no consultation period can start until a single document that contains the most important points and can be understood by the target audience in under 10 minutes is made available as the primary point of reference. Further detailed information will be available as links from that document.

2.To call for and vote in favour of a motion that no consultation period can start until  a transparent on line discussion forum is made. This could take the form of a Facebook group but must be open. A link must be in a prominent place on the consultation web page.

3.To call for and vote in favour than no consultation period can start unless it is is suitably publicised. This should include the provision of public information boards at the entrance to supermarkets, front page coverage in the local paper, a banner in the locality and in all instances include a layout image.

4.To call for and vote in favour of a motion that a separate 100 random constituents consultation is conducted to gauge if vested interests may be influencing the responses.

Thank you.

The chap who was supposed to ask the following question from the Agenda right after me never showed up, I guess my computer is being monitored as he was accounted for in my question. Alex Forrest you bugger!

"What is Wokingham Borough Council currently doing to show national government that Wokingham Borough Council is on top form and keeping in line with its proposals for implementing national strategy at a local level?"

At least their gamesmanship is transparent.

I would like to remind everyone that in the UK there is a right to film in public.

Erick Pickles has given clear guidance to Councillors to allow filming of all public meetings to be used how the blogger sees fit, the normal laws surrounding misrepresentation sufficient to act on abuses.

So our execuitives have given nothing. The have simply gone from not as transparent as they could be to a bit less.

There is one important point here. Enshrined in the constitution solely for the purpose of limiting the potential for corruption.

They must act in favour of transparency unless it is clearly in the public interest not to do so.

It would appear that each and every member of our Executive are in breach of the constitution.

What happens next? Don't leave it to me. Please. I'm tired.