Tuesday, 29 April 2014

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 Shute End Wokingham Tel: (0118) 974 6066
Mob: 07757 281 836 www.wokingham.gov.uk
 




DISCLAIMER
You should be aware that all e-mails received and sent by this Council are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore may be disclosed to a third party. (The information contained in this message or any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee). The views expressed may not be official policy but the personal views of the originator.

If you are not the addressees any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you received this message in error please return it to the originator and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it.

All messages sent by this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest antivirus products. This does not guarantee a virus has not been transmitted. Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions for the detection and eradication of viruses.


 
 

Kazek Lokuciewski


 
 
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


On 28 Jan 2014 10:00, "David Allen (communications)" <> wrote:
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
 
 
 


DISCLAIMER
You should be aware that all e-mails received and sent by this Council are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore may be disclosed to a third party. (The information contained in this message or any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee). The views expressed may not be official policy but the personal views of the originator.

If you are not the addressees any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you received this message in error please return it to the originator and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it.

All messages sent by this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest antivirus products. This does not guarantee a virus has not been transmitted. Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions for the detection and eradication of viruses.
 
 

David Allen (communications)

Jan 28
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
 
 
 
 
From: Kazek Lokuciewski [mailto:]
Sent: 28 January 2014 10:38
To: David Allen (communications)
Subject: Re: Video footage from North Wokingham Community Forum meeting ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~
 
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
 
 
On 28 Jan 2014 10:00, "David Allen (communications)" <> wrote:
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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Click here to report this email as spam.
4 older messages

Kazek Lokuciewski 

Jan 28 (9 days ago)
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 statenent is nit misskeading. I have advertised a transparency probkem and solution.  In this instance you will have to find an elected councillor to take responsibility for the request and explain why it is nit in breach if Eric Pickles guidelines and transparancy constitution.
On 28 Jan 2014 12:00, "David Allen (communications)" <> wrote:
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
 
 
 
 
From: Kazek Lokuciewski [mailto:]
Sent: 28 January 2014 10:38
To: David Allen (communications)
Subject: Re: Video footage from North Wokingham Community Forum meeting ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~
 
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
 
 
On 28 Jan 2014 10:00, "David Allen (communications)" <> wrote:
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
 
 
 
 

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
Wokingham Direct
Wokingham Borough Council
Shute End, Wokingham, RG40 1BN
Tel: (0118) 974 6010
Mobile: 07919 395076
Fax: (0118) 978 5053
www.wokingham.gov.uk
 
From: David Allen (communications)
Sent: 28 January 2014 10:00
To: Kazek Lokuciewski ()
Cc: Andrea Jenkins
Subject: Video footage from North Wokingham Community Forum meeting ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~
 
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
 
 


DISCLAIMER
You should be aware that all e-mails received and sent by this Council are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore may be disclosed to a third party. (The information contained in this message or any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee). The views expressed may not be official policy but the personal views of the originator.

If you are not the addressees any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you received this message in error please return it to the originator and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it.

All messages sent by this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest antivirus products. This does not guarantee a virus has not been transmitted. Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions for the detection and eradication of viruses.
 
 

Kazek Lokuciewski 

Jan 29
to Andrea
The commentary is in not way misleading. I actually thought the southern one was  Monday and thought I had missed it.



On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Andrea Jenkins <> wrote:
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
Wokingham Direct
Wokingham Borough Council
Shute End, Wokingham, RG40 1BN
Tel: (0118) 974 6010
Mobile: 07919 395076
Fax: (0118) 978 5053
www.wokingham.gov.uk
 
From: David Allen (communications)
Sent: 28 January 2014 10:00
To: Kazek Lokuciewski ()
Cc: Andrea Jenkins
Subject: Video footage from North Wokingham Community Forum meeting ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~
 
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
 

 
 
 

Kazek Lokuciewski 

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.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 7 April 2014

Fact of the day courtesy of Gill Purchace and Freedom of Information requests.

Thanks to there being no secondary school in the south east of Wokingham.

"530 children from Finchampstead, Arborfield, Swallowfield and Barkham are bused out to schools each day at a cost of over £415k a year!

Emmbrook 140
Yateley 64
Holt 122...
Forest 98
Bulmershe 0
St Crispins 106"
Posted by at 2 comments:

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

A bit about me

Since I'm standing as a local councillor, but do not have an army of vested interests or team supporters blindly going door to door for me, I though some S.M.A.R.T voters might like to get a hint of how I will portray myself.

PLEASE do not vote for me, or anyone else, on this type of information. Take it with a pinch of salt. I'm telling the truth, but you don't know that!

I was born in the UK, you can blame my flower power mum for my silly first name and Polish grandfather for the surname in 1976.

I grew up in Ascot in a well to do middle class cul-de-sac estate of about 30 houses. We played on the 'no through' road and along the stream behind the gardens. One could say it was idyllic, even though my parents did divorce, they never compromised their parenting as a result.

My father was successful young, running his own submersible manufacturing business with me as the little prince, the then had a run of bad luck, to the extent that when I was 13 and the house was on the line, and then he did well again. I learned to take nothing for granted, that hard work is not always enough.

I attended Windsor Boys School where I excelled at maths and was chess captain for my house. I then went to Windsor collage and was mostly distracted by girls. I found my poor spelling dyslexia poor memory for names and dates dyslexia, all pre-home computers were not a good mix for A-Levels where the grades are based on writing out names and dates. I left feeling deflated, feeling that I understood better than most, and contributed in my chosen subjects human biology, psychology and business studies.

After a stint of very hard, full responsibility dead end jobs / traineeships combined work and being in a band, my professional education came as a mature student at Maidenhead Collage. I studied Media, Communications an production with part time work at Nickelodeon, while nannying at weekends.

Aided by Microsoft Word to counter the poor handwriting and spelling, and the fact that the work was graded on output technical skills and understanding, I gained a distinction grade.

I then started as a Multimedia trainee and worked my way up to Multimedia Producer for a medical company in Wokingham.

I am married to the mother of my two children 4 and 8. (No those are not unusual names :)

Hobbies include; Piano, singing, guitar, weights, hero movies, outlandish wit and comedy as a whole.

My larger passion at the moment is economics, the effect of money in politics, privatisation and and capital loop holes on the quality of life of the majority.

I am very fortunate, but I at least accept that. Too many people think they are clever for having been able to have purchased property and sat on it or had family wealth made available.

I'm deeply concerned that the many people have two choices. Become capital slaves, or rebel against civilised society. The first will leave them unhappy, the second will leave them dangerous.

It's high time the human race shared the rewards of innovation, work fewer hours, create less waste and do things of true value.

But this means a new way of managing capital, competitiveness and families hoarding the ownership of necessities.
Posted by at No comments:

Not that it should matter. My political ideology.


I did not want to clog up my campaign post with too much boring rubbish. At the same time some people will rightly want more information on my political ideology

I was Conservative until about 2011. It would be fine as is if the money at the top was not gambling off pensions, moving on and offshore to manipulate markets and everyone with money, including myself, investing in rental properties, turning less fortunate children into serfs for ours.

I believe market forces drive innovation and those who wish to should be able to reap the rewards to spend on a luxurious lifestyle. I think however more measures should be put in place so that those innovators are less able hoard the ownership of necessities especially within family trusts.

I recently ran a political test that pegged me as slightly left and about 20% liberal. I thought I was more right.

In 2012 I stood as a paper candidate for the Greens. A paper candidate is to see how many people are clueless enough to vote a national party in a local election, even though the candidate is not intended to do anything, someone else does the paperwork, they are even willing to arrange your nominations. At this time I was not aware that it was a paid role. How can they call it volunteer role?

I insisted on getting my 10 nominations. I discovered what was going on in my ward of Wescott and that of my neighbouring Evendons. I found out how little most knew about it. After that I learned that the schemes had been progressing behind closed doors for 5 years, only to have Cllrs insist it was well publicized and consulted on. Something we know to be untrue.


I think that is not so much the political video behind my view of how things work more efficiently. It is perhaps my view how the world is going to have to start to run if we are going to enjoy living in it. Slower, with less waste. We can not let companies who sell fossil fuels or arms drive us into more wasteful action that no-one enjoys though their political cousins.

I have a blog addressing these issues if you are interested. But it is not relevant in this election. I just want to introduce procedures that will help neuter corruption and introduce the concept of S.M.A.R.T voting, which is sourly needed on the world stage. Where better to start world piece than in Wokingham?
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

South of Wokingham SDL public meeting tonight 7pm. Eric Pickles guidelines and Cllr code of conduct broken again.




South of Wokingham SDL presentation tonight
Date: Tuesday 25 March 2014

Key points below.

Date: Tuesday 25 March 2014
Venue: Wokingham Methodist Church (main church), Rose Street, Wokingham
Time: 7:00pm to 8:45pm

The Feasibility Studies on the route options for the South Wokingham Distributor Road is not complete however a separate meeting dedicated to this will be organised and the date and venue publicised

Update on South Wokingham Strategic Development Location progress.

The My Journey and Green Ways projects: helping to reduce car-use through new technology and an enhanced footpath, cycleway and bridleway network.

Flooding – what is being done in Wokingham Borough to alleviate flood risk and impact


The pdf.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Kaz,
 
We will not be allowing filming at this forum but hope you can come along and contribute.
 
David
 
David Allen Partnership Development Officer Wokingham Borough Council
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here is an outright lie on the borough website.

http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/news/filming/

Is the whole thing a PR exercise? The purpose to to distract the public from the possibility that infrastructure contributions are 66% lower than they could and should be?

This council refuses to let you find out. This council refuses to go on the record. Yes they are nice when you play ball. The conduct is very different when you challenge them.

Get money out of politics.

www.NoCheapPromises.org

--------------------------------------------------------
Update. It was a very informative meeting with some good and worrying points raised and covered with useful slides so that those pointes raised can be visualised. I even finally got a figure regarding average SDL contributions so I seem to be getting some traction. Why should community volunteers need to be pushed like this?
 
Most of you will never be able to see the meeting. You will have access to selective minutes and will have to pay for them to be typed up eventually. They will make little sense without the presentation screen and can miss out unwanted information without risk of a true public record.
 
 
 


Posted by at 2 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)