The Corrie exchange

Sorry Alistair. I mean't it as an 'are'.
I don't really know you nor you me. There are only our actions.
I could not be offended by anything you said. How could I?
Your integrity in the council can only be shown by deed.
Again. I don't know you so please try to take this the right way.
If you are partially in this to court contacts to improve your tax advice business later then this its going to blow out of all proportion.
If as hope you 'are' in this for your desire to do right by the people of the borough and expect, if anything, a little long term financial loss for the privalege, then you have my upmost apologies. And I'd like to by you a drink and support you should your future in politics continue.
But I only have your deeds to go by.
Kaz
P.S If your the second guy then Happy Birthday by the way and sorry.

On 27 Jul 2012 14:10, <

Dear Kaz

You say you were hoping I was one of those?

So it appears it does not really matter what you and I say to each other, seeing as you have already made up your mind about me.

I would have preferred you ended with "I am hoping you are one of those", which would still be an underhand tactic of getting a reaction, but at least left the door open for dialogue.

But as you are not open to having a proper dialogue, you just want to attack, and you jump to conclusions, I guess there is no real point meeting up or continuing this conversation.

Which is a shame.

Hope you have a good weekend.

Alistair

Cllr Alistair Corrie

---

From: Kazek Lokuciewski

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:18:13 +0100

To:

Subject: Re: The 100M contract.

A list of each expenditure over £500 has to be published by the council and for 20 days each year the details of those must be made available. on request so companies people seeking government contracts have to accept that they may be scrutinised and the Government representative also. If you do not believe this is necessary they you may as well move to Bulgaria or Russia.

I would be absolutely happy and would not expect it to be any other way. Part of the cost of true democracy. Bit by bit we are getting there..

But rather than demand the information I thought I might test the water. Some people are honest, open and expect the same of all people they do business with. I was hoping you were one of those.

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM,

Hi Kaz,

Would you as business person want to do business with the council if you knew your contracts with the council were going to be made public?

Would your clients be happy for you to publish your contracts with them?

This conversation will be so much easier face to face.

Alistair

---

From: Kazek Lokuciewski

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:06:28 +0100

To: <cllr.alistair.corrie>

Subject: Re: The 100M contract.

I don;t have those and it would take a lot of time.

Do you believe the community should not be allowed to see the contract?

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:18 AM, <cllr.alistair.corrie@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Kaz

Can you find me some examples of bodies like WBC which have published contracts like these?

Can you find me examples of companies like WB which have done the same?

If you could bring those with you when we meet that would be great

Alistair

Cllr Alistair Corrie
0777 557 3454

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

---

From: Kazek Lokuciewski <kazek.lok@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:55:54 +0100

To: <cllr.alistair.corrie@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: The 100M contract.

Saturday 4th I gather you will be having some kind of feedback review anyway so we could work around that?

But back to the contract. Please . . . 

Some actual response to this. Not just  for me to read. Published for the people it really effects to review at their leisure.

Thanks

Kaz

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:35 AM, <cllr.alistair.corrie@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Kaz

Can't do during the day due to work commitments.

This weekend is bad as it is my birthday weekend. Can we do next weekend?

I will think about the recording. It sounds a little big brother and weird, but let me get used to the idea.

Alistair

 

---

 

Thanks Alistair

Typically I unavailable until about 7:30pm but my work timetable is very flexible an I can get out for a couple of hours. Today is as good as any. 1pm ish?

It may be relevant to record the meeting do you have any objections, conditions. My motivation is so that as we talk I can quote the answers but I will seek your contextual approval of any quotes I intend to use. i.e. you will be given the opportunity to qualify it before I publish.

Regards

Kaz


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

Dear Mr Lokuciewski,

 

Thank you fo you email.

 

Please feel free to call me Alistair.

 

Why don't we meet up as soon as possible for an hour or two and talk through all the points which are on your mind?

 

Let me know what evenings or weekends would work best for you, an which timings would suit.

 

I look forward to meeting you.

 

Alistair

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

Dear Mr Corrie.

I and many others were very disappointed to hear that you had signed the £100m 'Wokingham Regeneration' contract on the morning of the first day of the exhibition.

I will come clean. I am the Kaz4Wokingham who has been ranting about the proposals on twitter. To me it seems that the community was not adequately included and as an active member of the normal local community I know I am in the majority.

What busy person would turn up and give a view when there is a poster for  'Regeneration'. We trust the council to do a good job od the 1960s parade and though that was it.

In the same breath is the poster has said, 100 homes to be built on and around Elms field you would get a very different response and I feel that also a response should have been sought were the scope to have been an attempt at objectivity.

There was mention of 5000 leaflets for the original scope back in 2011. I have had to make a freedom of information request to find out which roads these were sent to since the information was never forth coming

The other area of concern is the actual contract. This is a very large contract with one specific supplier over 10 years. Given the scandals that we keep coming up in the media I hope you can respect that many people much like myself are no longer willing to accept anything short of complete transparency. I hope you believe as I do that a public representative should expect to prove their integrity with their actions rather than assume it.

I was hoping you would be willing to make the contract open to public scrutiny.

Regarding the actual plans I think they look nice and were it not for the fact that we have not yet resolved the school spaces issue and, that we have unacceptable congestion my objections would be solely based on the general Green view that the world can not afford to keep going on like this, one that locally I may well be in a minority.

 I suspect most would agree that affordable homes. But am also conserved that, in an areas where average house prices are nearly double in wokingham are nearly double that of the national average the profit for the developers here is massive. I would be sure that we are paying the developer reasonable building costs and the lion share being part buy property with needs assessed as the only solution to young people today having a family home.

I have been deeply angered that this information has not been made available and that my local community seems to be ignored. I aslo feel compelled to ensure as many people as possible are aware when they are not being actively included in the way I feel they should.

My channel has been mostly ranting on twitter.

I would rather this was not the case.

Please can you make the £100m contract freely available online to the community who it so deeply affects.

Regards

Kazek Lokuciewski

For anyone who has to suffer Guy Grandison or any other Woingham Tory zealot being insane or dishonest.

Peach Street wokingham. How not to consult.

A quick Facebook survey and it does not appear to be just me.

Favourite quote from a bloke who agreed that a team would disappear for 6 months, no selection of styles (anyone work in a creative environment knows you put out some sketches of options to hone the direction you work in)

Cllr Philp Mirfin, executive member for regeneration and communities, said: "Talking to local residents and businesses about the regeneration has been incredibly important to us throughout the whole process.


Errrrrm. So why didn't you then.


From what I can tell you just made everything in 1980's style red brick with absolutely no features? Who asked for that?

http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/news/index/nov2014/latest-plans-for-peach-place/

There seems to be some kind of mental block among the people who take the profit out of all this, so I thought I'd make a quick 30 minute Photoshop to show you the kind of ideas many of us were hoping for and expecting.

Informing the public in the Market Square

Having been part of the 38Degrees team who went into the Wokingham town centre building awareness of TTIP I was interested when Stan Hetherington told one of us, who has put out a table and poster, that he was no allowed to do so in market place. He seemed also to think that even talking to people there was forbidden as the publicly owned area was managed in a private manner.

I personally felt that it may well be the case for the stand and likely not the case for talking, but agreed that it was only fair not to talk to potential customers while they browsed in shops.

The other chap did a bit of research with the council and the present logic is this.
---------------
Hi xxxxxxxxx
I followed up on your being "moved on" by the Councillor and what we can and can't do in future.
WDC told me the market square in Wokingham is private land owned by the Town Council, so I spoke with Rob Vincent of Wokingham TC. His advice is as follows. There is no requirement for any licence as long as we do not collect money. A small table with a small poster is fine. The most important thing is not to harrass members of the public in any way. His suggestion is that we give him a phone call on xxxxxx a few days in advance and discuss our plans with him. That way, if any stall holders complain, we can say we have permission.
So, if you're not taking money and wish to protest / inform in the market square. Have at it.
 ----------------------------------
Be considerate though.

 

Solar farms on green belt? No thanks.

I'm an environmentalist. That's why I'm not a fan of Solar installations on farm land.

 

I'll review my view of this once most of us have solar on well insulated home and office roofs, heat reclaim, heat stores and and wood chip burners or gasifiers.

 

The ROI on farm land is doing the wrong thing. Subsidising old money with council connections making money out of a policy designed to incentivise the public and businesses to make use of wasted roof space.

 

Wait fro the next phase when the same land owning families to use their solar farms as a launch pad for land owners to argue they should get planning permission for housing developments.

 

I don't have a problem with that, but the profit should be only in a mark up on construction. Not land value changes for planning permission, that should be completely realised as infrastructure contributions with a % for overpriced areas to invest in making low value areas more valuable.

 

Should Charlotte Haitham Taylor stand down?

Should Charlotte Haitham Taylor stand down as a Wokingham Borough Councillor, who is also on the executive for children's services, for running for the conservative MP for Durham?

It's even in the BBC news.

I did not realise that this volunteer member of our community (odd kind of volunteering because it pays £15k pre tax) was of that level of establishment connection to make it into the BBC news. She certainly is not the first hopeful career politician to cut her teeth as a Tory councillor only to find the present MP unlikely to move.

The thing I find maddening in all of this is that the argument is that she can not perform the role for time constraints.

Mrs Taylor who's family own several companies that sell IT services, including into government, does not need to work a 40 hour week along with her husband to maintain a family home.

Since someone who is representative of the community is supposed form the voice of the public, those people should ideally include a representative proportion of the population that makes up the constituents, including the majority who do both have to work 40 hours / week to support a  home. That is why borough councillors are mandated to be able to perform their duties in what is reasonable spare time for an employed adult. They do not take the minutes, or do the paper work. They direct those who are paid to do so.

Time is not something she has a problem with compared those workers who are capable of being the most important thing, truly representative.

My conclusion is that she should not stand down from her post in Wokingham on the basis of time constraint. The family business is based locally, as is the family home.

My question is, should she stand as the MP for Durham?

It sickens me the lack of respect we have for the measures our forebears designed to ensure that the country is governed for the people by the people.

The wife of a successful business family based around Bracknell is clearly not representative of the median person in Durham.

A fair constitution would warrant that she is not eligible to stand as the ministerial representative for that constituency.

Shame on anyone who votes for a power craver from out of town who suggests they are better than everyone their own community can offer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-29326786

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/tories-accused-being-deeply-patronising-7820404

Now with a facebook page claiming her being a Durham local, and telling the locals here she is a member of this community, the only thing we do have a genuine answer to is will she say and do anything for her political career?

Either that or she believes she is genuinely better than the combined best of working people from both communities?

Is boycotting Israel fair?

Like most western, non Jewish people, the whole Israel / Palestine thing for me was filed under third world extremists for a long time. So I decided to do what little research I could from my cosy armchair.

 

One picture for me was a bit of a show stopper that needed little in the way of explanation.

 

 

But there are two sides to every argument.

 

When research into the sides of an argument there are two paths.

 

1. You read through everything you can get your hands on.

 

2. You draw conclusions with the information you have on the fly, and vocalise them, but keeping an open mind to the responses you might get back.

 

I find the second approach more efficient, if not more confrontational.

 

Please to fill me in if you have any fair arguments for why in 1947 one of the greatest travesties in the history of mankind was committed. Palestinian land split in such a way that Israel became 3 territories, which it then quickly joined and expanded.

 

Throughout all this time western powers have been funding and arming Israel in such a way that the western public effectively fund an aggressor in the middle east and arm it, which in turn spends that money on arms from the west. Effectively taking the benefits of the productive economy and directing it towards the destructive economy.

 

I fully accept the destructive side of human nature when it has nothing better to do and a sense of entitlement and can respect that certain people with a grander belief have come to the conclusion that a destabilising the east is an essential part of keeping the west safe.

 

I would like to tell a related story that might not seem to be in its telling.

 

I remember a startling moment when myself and an English born man of Pakistani decent were chatting in one of the many waiting areas while our wives were going through labour at Reading hospital.

 

We were both clearly interested in politics and religion (me being agnostic).

 

At some point he spoke of there being an almighty Christian Muslim war, and that when the call comes he and his brothers to band together and fight.

 

It was the perfect place for me to do my speech about a brotherhood, that he is my brother and who should be able to call him to murder me or our children to murder one another. I spoke of how if I was commanded on pain of death to me and my family to commit murder in another country I would turn on those who saw fit to command it.

 

But I was surprised by the event.

 

I have through marriage a Moroccan Muslim family and feel there is no risk of them baring arms on the whim of a religious figurehead. Perhaps because their figure head appears to be a good and caring man. I found this fanaticism coming from the mouth of a 2nd Generation Brit, in the maternity ward of all places.

Condemning our children to bloody murder with a sense of pride.

 

I hope my points had some impact.

 

So how does this story relate to Gaza and the West Bank?

 

I would like to use it to answer the several trains of thought that might be used to justify the Israel Gaza offensive.

 

• We destabilise the East driving it towards sectarian violence to keep it from becoming organised enough to form a stable group that might one date conker the west.

 

I will not deny that, at some time long gone, a poorly educated, impoverished Muslim majority could be convinced by fanatical figureheads to do bloody revenge on the evil of the Crusading Christians. The rise of the computer and international relation however suggest to me that we have long been at the point where the educated wish to enter a global peace. Yes there are small groups. But they are hopeless groups with a poor quality of life. But what creates those groups and how can we help them

 

• Israel will have it's own land according to Bible.

 

Who is the fanatic. Almost all of the developed world has a charter that forbids restrictions and punishments on religious grounds alone. The democratic population surely would not warrant taking 80% of another country, paid only in violence.

 

• Quality of life is the difference between expectation and reality. Sympathy with a well documented extreme poor quality of life results in a happier working majority.

 

I agree. Lets have mandatory historic atrocities and their causes on TV for 1 hour a day. No need to cause it.

 

• We sell spy tech they don't understand and keep them from developing the building blocks themselves

That is a good reason, and would work fine if we could trust ourselves. But since each of our past prime ministers establishes a trust using an offshore company to own £m's unregistered investments, we are in no position to ensure our leaders have that purpose in mind, even if they suggest it.

 

My fear is that the real cause is something more sinister, and at the same not sinister at all.

 

Vested interests.

 

Take a company like BAE Bowing and Airbus they needs to sell fighter jets to stay afloat. There is a lot of money flying around at the air shows and while the companies may not be complicit directly, there is rarely a big investigation into where the large bonuses go.

 

Where I say it is not sinister is that we all know that 1 in 100 people is narcissistic, a crook. they would sell their own mother for £10k. Where this becomes sinister is that the most intelligent, organised and analytical of these people are able to the occupy positions of power and, unlike the selfless or modest they seek them out.

 

Lets say 1 in 100 of our narcissists is a genius. We have now one in 10,000 who is able to manipulate those around them in the most efficient manner using the tools they have. Lets say one

 

In the UK that would mean we have, of business age, 2000 leaders who will do anything to get rich, are vengeful and are extremely clever about it.

 

That's a lot of people who are willing to grow their offshore trust fund by investing in £36b/year arms contracts and then stimulating this without a care.

 

 

Remember, these 2000 people in the UK alone do not need to do the work. They need only set up a hedge fund and offer a generous bonus. It just takes a few of the 1 in 2000 to go after the bonus in the resulting country. £100k will go a long way in many developing countries.

 

So how does this relate to the title?

 

Simply this. Our large press outlets, our governments positions, and the map at the top of the page.

 

Our press has boycotted this information. They do not speak about the fact that the Gaza strip is the most densely populated place in the world, where do we expect these people to go, how will they feed themselves without land to grow food on?

 

Not one conservative politician seems willing to condemn Israel and agree that Palestine needs to have a lot of land given back before they can become a people who have the land they need to build hope for a quality life for their children. It's that hope that places value on life.

 

If their reasons are:

• Blindly towing the line for hope of future political position.
• Deluded by personal profit / arms investments.
• Accepted lack of knowledge and no motivation to expand it.
• Fear or retribution.

Then they are surely not worthy of the office they command.

 

If they have good reason for not only allowing but assisting the continued occupation.

• Justification beyond the map.
• An unknown honourable motive.

Then as a democracy we should expect to hear it. Not demanding the justification make life much easier for the 2000 genius narcissistic leaders in the UK.

 

I have yet to hear it. 'It's complicated' is not enough reason for the US to hand $3b a year to a country that does not run at a deficit.

 

The silence is deafening. Not only that but those in the public eye who speak out, are being boycotted by industry leaders.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/cruz-and-bardem-face-fury-of-hollywood-following-genocide-letter-condemning-israel-9659707.html

 

And this is why I support a boycott, though I would like to see more focus on celebrities, especially those who normally use their profile to influence public sentiment.

 

I do not blame Jews for the Israel occupation of Palestine the same was as I do not blame you or I for dividing the land and providing financial support and arms to the Israel government. While we must accept a blame of complacency, we did not act, and nor have most Jews.

 

Money is currently boycotting those who speak out against the Israel occupation of Palestine, especially in Hollywood and the UK and US governments.

 

Our leading figures are proving themselves again to having some hidden agenda.

 

Yes, boycott the Israel products, I fear however we will find that out governments will simply provide bigger financial aid to ensure the region remains.

 

Boycott those celebrities who refuse to speak openly on the issue the way they should. They hold the key to public opinion and the resulting political change.

Where is all started 2000 years ago.
http://history-of-israel.org/history/chronological_presentation11.php

Balfour Declaration (Where Rothschild's money started meddling in Wars again)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

 

Ex Rothschild Employee Redwood fails to condemn Israel

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/john-redwood-mp-time-reflect-7578852

 

Israel drone engines manufactured in Staffordshire

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/13238-israeli-arms-factory-shut-down-by-uk-pro-palestine-campaigners-shut-down-ongoing

 

Hamas government fanatasism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8557251.stm

 

How much value would we place on your life, and the life of your children if we were crammed into Gaza with nowhere to go? Value of life is proportional to quality of life.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/hamas_leading_their_people_to_death.html

 

2013 £12b military exports to oppressive regimes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blood-money-uks-123bn-arms-sales-to-repressive-states-8711794.html

 

Palestine / Gaza population

http://www.palestine-diplo.com/spip.php?article733 

Post Election Analysis. Feeble 71 as an independent as opposed to 281 Green in 2012.

I stood in the local election because not one of my candidates was willing to commit to the things I care about, and things that most people you speak to agree with whole heartedly when it comes to transparency in contracts.

I spent most of my time preparing a SMART-voter.org promise list and the platform so that other honest / democratic candidates can stand in the future off of the same pedestal.

I also printed and put up 8 posters which I was well aware were being taken down. I'll note that I only found three after the election. Posters can only work if the competition believe in your right to an informed decision.

If someone took the time to write my name and Evendons into Google the first link would be to my campaign page. If they followed the link on the poster they would have come to an identical blog page. This way I was able to see how many people took the time to type loku.co.uk/kaz into their browser having read the poster or put Kaz Evendons into Google.

The stats were always buffed up when I put something into Facebook or Twitter with as many as 40 views in 1 day. I was well aware though that those views were more likely from fellow activists from all sides.

What I was most interested in seeing was if members of the public would spontaneously research their candidates online in the run up t the election. For this reason I did not promote the links in the final days.

By the time the election came I had 100 views of the poster link, which I has also been promoting prior to the posters. There were perhaps 10 views from when the posters went up. I typically divide by four to get real human figures so I'll call that 2 researching stimulated by the posters.

At the same time I had 150 views of the google search page over the week. Again, dividing by 4 you get 50. If you take into account how many of those were people researching their candidate in the last few days running up to the election, that was a mear 50. Divide that by 4 that's 12.5 people out of 8000 who googled their candidates name in the run up to the election.

Were I to have to put money on how many genuine voters looked into my online presence I'd say 50 people out of 8000. Less than 0.65%

It would appear that the only way presently to get elected is to go door to door for the month prior.

Candidates can lie on the doorstep. They are also advertising the fact that they are not representative of the public who simple can not afford to invest the time. It may well be that they have a vested interest outside the £8k-22k they are paid but strangely not advertised when the chance to stand for election is poorly advertised.

Had I received 2000 views and I concluded that 500 genuine voters has seen my information then I would have been disappointed that the commitments I was offering were not important to voters.

As it happened, only 50 people looked and 71 people voted. I therefore received 21 votes from people who were too lazy to treat their democracy with the respect it deserves.

My motivation in all of this is not Wokingham. I would like to see people all over the world voting out corrupt bankers, war mongers and land owning trusts.

As long as people vote for the most attentive person, real honest people will not be able to compete with vested interests.

Wokingham Borough Council Elections. Weasil out the Crooks. Chance to win £50.

Update. It would appear that only I bothered. I have a handful of responses from non mainstream parties, which I will do a little vlog on. I have spent the £50 on some new trainers, two tank tops and some grey shorts.

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



Most current politicians are odd slippery characters with two imperatives.

1. Commit to nothing.
2. Don't say no to you (that will lose your vote)

 

This game is simple.

Send an e-mail to a / some local borough councillor candidates(s) asking them to commit transparency and accountability as per the SMART-voter.org terms. You are allowed follow up communications.

Try to get them to;
1. Do it.
2. Refuse to do it.
3. Give a good reason why they can't.

You will likely get none of the above. What we are interested in is the way they get out of answering your question.

Send a copy of the communications to ask@SMART-voter.org.

Entries close Midnight Friday 16th of May.

On Saturday we will have a video panel going through the answers and picking our favourites for whatever reasons come to mind at the time for example comic effect and dialogue between a voter and their candidate.

The addresses below are for generic local political party leaders or administrative contacts.

If you wish to try to get a response from your actual local candidates then this link might help to find our who your candidate are so you can google their names.

http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/elections/boroughelection/?categoryesctl6284731=3321

Happy hunting.

P.S Please do e-mail this to your friends. The candidate research is hopefully more important than the reward.

E-mail 1: Lib Dems

steven.scarrott@ntlworld.com

Subject. Borough Elections. Commitment to democracy.

Dear Mr Scarrot

I am involved in the Wokingham Borough Elections and have been made aware that you are standing candidates for the Liberal democrats.

I have become increasingly disenfranchised with politicians over recent years and have decided to join a public movement that ensures we have the facts we need to make an informed decision.

I hope you can respect how important it is that people can not be misled by those with vested interests.

Please can arrange for each of your candidates to sign the SMART-voter.org contract and make public their obligations in a simple and concise manner so that I may consider their candidacy. If they have no policies that you are willing to commit to they need only provide a blank promise list.

If there are reasons why you feel that you can not provide this level of transparency, please do let me know what they are. The movement is young and will no doubt have some teething problems

Kind Regards

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

E-mail 2: Tory. You will have to send via their online form.

http://www.wokinghamconservatives.org.uk/contact

Subject. Borough elections. Commitment to democracy.
Dear Sir / Madam

I am due to vote in the Borough Elections and have been made aware that you are standing a candidate in every ward.

I have become increasingly disenfranchised with politicians over recent years and have decided to join a public movement that ensures we have the facts we need to make an informed decision.

I hope you can respect how important it is that people can not be misled by those with vested interests.

Please can arrange for each of your candidates to sign the SMART-voter.org contract and make public their obligations in a simple and concise manner so that I may consider their candidacy. If they have no policies that you are willing to commit to they need only provide a blank promise list.

If there are reasons why you feel that you can not provide this level of transparency, please do let me know what they are. The movement is young and will no doubt have some teething problems
Kind Regards

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

Email 3: Labour

http://www.readinglabour.org.uk/contact.html

Subject. Borough elections. Commitment to democracy.
Dear Sir / Madam
I am due to vote in the Borough Elections and have been made aware that you are standing some candidates.

I have become increasingly disenfranchised with politicians over recent years and have decided to join a public movement that ensures we have the facts we need to make an informed decision.

I hope you can respect how important it is that people can not be misled by those with vested interests.

Please can arrange for each of your candidates to sign the SMART-voter.org contract and make public their obligations in a simple and concise manner so that I may consider their candidacy. If they have no policies that you are willing to commit to they need only provide a blank promise list.

If there are reasons why you feel that you can not provide this level of transparency, please do let me know what they are. The movement is young and will no doubt have some teething problems
Kind Regards

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

Email 4: UKIP

http://ukipbracknell.webs.com/contactus.htm

Subject. Borough elections. Commitment to democracy.
Dear Sir / Madam
I am due to vote in the Borough Elections and have been made aware that you are standing some candidates.

I have become increasingly disenfranchised with politicians over recent years and have decided to join a public movement that ensures we have the facts we need to make an informed decision.

I hope you can respect how important it is that people can not be misled by those with vested interests.

Please can arrange for each of your candidates to sign the SMART-voter.org contract and make public their obligations in a simple and concise manner so that I may consider their candidacy. If they have no policies that you are willing to commit to they need only provide a blank promise list.

If there are reasons why you feel that you can not provide this level of transparency, please do let me know what they are. The movement is young and will no doubt have some teething problems
Kind Regards

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

Email 5: Green

info@readingGreenParty.org.uk

Subject. Borough elections. Commitment to democracy.
Dear Mr White
I am due to vote in the Borough Elections and have been made aware that you are standing some candidates.

I have become increasingly disenfranchised with politicians over recent years and have decided to join a public movement that ensures we have the facts we need to make an informed decision.

I hope you can respect how important it is that people can not be misled by those with vested interests.

Please can arrange for each of your candidates to sign the SMART-voter.org contract and make public their obligations in a simple and concise manner so that I may consider their candidacy. If they have no policies that you are willing to commit to they need only provide a blank promise list.

If there are reasons why you feel that you can not provide this level of transparency, please do let me know what they are. The movement is young and will no doubt have some teething problems
Kind Regards
----------------------------------------------------------

Wokingham, Evendons May 22 2014. Some text to check if your candidate respects your right to an informed decision?

 

Lib Dem

 

Communication Channel. Nothing direct. Try his wife Prue.

 

http://wokinghamlibdems.org.uk/en/contact

 

Dear Mr Bray

I am due to vote in the Evendons Election on the 22nd of May and have been made aware that you are my local candidate for the Liberal democrats.

I have become increasingly disenfranchised with politicians over recent years and have decided to join a public movement that ensures we have the facts we need to make an informed decision.

I hope you can respect how important it is that people can not be misled by those with vested interests.

Please can you sign the SMART-voter.org contract and make public your obligations in a simple and concise manner so that I may consider your candidacy. If you have no policies that you are willing to commit to you need only provide a blank promise list.
If there are reasons why you feel that you can not provide this level of transparency, please do let me know what they are. The movement is young and will no doubt have some teething problems

Kind Regards

 

 

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

 

Conservative

 

Communication channel.

 

http://www.wokingham-tc.gov.uk/index.php/contact-us/councillors/48-cllr-mark-ashwell

Dear Mr Ashwell

I am due to vote in the Evendons Election on the 22nd of May and have been made aware that you are my local candidate for the Liberal democrats.

I have become increasingly disenfranchised with politicians over recent years and have decided to join a public movement that ensures we have the facts we need to make an informed decision.

I hope you can respect how important it is that people can not be misled by those with vested interests.

Please can you sign the SMART-voter.org contract and make public your obligations in a simple and concise manner so that I may consider your candidacy. If you have no policies that you are willing to commit to you need only provide a blank promise list.
If there are reasons why you feel that you can not provide this level of transparency, please do let me know what they are. The movement is young and will no doubt have some teething problems

Kind Regards

 

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

The first step to finding out who your candidates are.

http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/elections/boroughelection/?categoryesctl6284731=3321

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.

 

 

Filming_protocol_for_public_meetings_and_community_forums1.pdf

94 KB

Reply

Reply to all

Forward

Kazek Lokuciewski	Hi David. When was in it's entirety added? Editing this down into key points ...	Jan 28 (9 days ago)
Hi David. When was in it's entirety added? Editing this down into key points ...

Kazek Lokuciewski	Jan 28 (9 days ago)
Loading...

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.

 

 

Reply

Forward

David Allen (communications)	Dear Kaz, Thanks for your reply. The key issue is the text (annotation) added...	Jan 28 (9 days ago)
Dear Kaz, Thanks for your reply. The key issue is the text (annotation) added...

David Allen (communications)	Jan 28 (9 days ago)
Loading...

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.

Reply

Reply to all

Forward

4 older messages

Kazek Lokuciewski	Ill have to look into this. Eric Pickles was most ckear that bloggers would b...	Jan 28 (9 days ago)
Ill have to look into this. Eric Pickles was most ckear that bloggers would b...

Kazek Lokuciewski	Jan 28 (9 days ago)
Loading...

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

 

 

 

 

Reply

Forward

Andrea Jenkins	Dear Kaz Yesterday we asked you to remove a slide on your Wokingham Voice vid...	Jan 29 (8 days ago)
Dear Kaz Yesterday we asked you to remove a slide on your Wokingham Voice vid...

Andrea Jenkins	Jan 29 (8 days ago)
Loading...

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.

 

 

Reply

Reply to all

Forward

Kazek Lokuciewski	The commentary is in not way misleading. I actually thought the southern one ...	Jan 29 (8 days ago)
The commentary is in not way misleading. I actually thought the southern one ...

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

 

 

 

 

Reply

Forward

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.