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 Allen Partnership Development Officer Wokingham Borough Council

And here is an outright lie on the borough website.


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.


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.

Friday, 21 March 2014

Kaz Lokuciewski. Wokingham Borough Elections 2014. Evendons. Independent. SMART-voter.org friendly.

SMART-voter Promise list   :   Signed Contract

Stands for improved: Transparency, consultation, accountability, scrutiny, environmental considerations, less development of open spaces, no fracking.

Don't take my word for it. 
Demand the same rights you have when you 
buy a packet of crisps!

I'm fed up with politicians.

That's why I'm standing as an Independent councillor?

From MPs expenses scandals to the murky world of local development contracts, I'm fed with those politicians with vested interests. Lets bring honesty and accountability back into democracy. If we can't fix the cause of the problems here in educated middle class Wokingham then where will it start?

What's the cause?

Well funded liars have the advantage, having the time and financial motivation to go door to door or send personal letters to all they plan to leach from.

I'm willing to honestly represent the community, but I'm not going to beg. Do you beg or pay  to be the one to help your neighbour move house? Perhaps... if you were a theif.

Mine say good things

Every 'volunteer' will say that they offer hope and change on the issues that you care about. In Evendons you may hear about.

  • Listening to peoples views on Elms field. Regardless of the fact that many of the same people who started sneaking it through in 2009 are still there today.
  • Local school places. Even though the establishment are cramming homes in areas that are over subscribed and have recently removed the requirement to consider school places when developing.
  • Traffic congestion. Even though the establishment intend to exit 2500 houses onto an already congested floodplain roundabout.
  • Transparency. Even though no current councillor has called a motion to provide or allow filming at all public interest public meetings, key members of both parties have actively blocked filming in breach of their councillor code of conduct. And a councillor lied that planning and scrutiny meeting legally could not be filmed.

No matter who you vote for this year the existing Wokingham Borough Council planning committee will approve..

  • The congestion of the Market town we fell in love with, doing so on massive debt.
  • Our debt will be dependent on increased consumption to pay it off. Don't worry we can let more starving children on the equator die and have a charity run to feel better and to help 5% of those.
  • Pay double a 'Value for money' guess tends to be for many contract or refuse to provide any information at all. No break down of costs.
  • Maintain full selective control of who can scrutinise those contracts in a system that was system was flagged as 'Open to abuse' by the Audit committee.

Those standing on a suggestion that they will represent your view. Do they have a method of achieving it? They are one voice in 53 of which 43 are Tories.

If they are a Tory, will they break rank? Is the decision passed up to a senior Tory who will not represent you?

It may be that the Tories do represent your view. The problem is that no-one really knows because fair consultations are never run and conclusions seem to be spun. 

With no down of costs and the ability to appoint who both negotiates and scrutinises contracts the establishment have both the means and the motive. All I needed to do was to ask for information and consider if the resistance I met was appropriate. 

So Kaz. What made you suspicious?

It all started when a friend told me of public forum where there was an awkward moment amongst the presenters about work on Peach Place being dependent on a partial sale of Elms field, and that it would have been helpful to have had that on film in later disputes.

I then attended a South of Wokingham SDL meeting where the highways chap was trapped admitting that he was there to facilitate the development, not resolve congestion problems. This was not minited.

Since one of these projects is to drive through a £100m construction contract on debt with relatively small profit margin, and the other is to change farm land value of a farm by about £200m for someone else, there's plenty of motive for corrupt individuals to control every aspect of what is recorded as being said and asked. I concluded that it is essential that the discussion are a matter of accurate public record.

I asked to film the next forum and to cut a long story short, it was clear to me that the SDL strategic partner said no at the last minute. Who does our council work for?

I did my research and every councillor is obliged to support transparency unless 'clearly in the public interest no to do so' Councillors can't oppose filming of such meeting. As the challenges progressed, councillor Keith Baker resorted to dishonesty, either that or an incredible short memory and confusion. He even threatened to sue me for attacking his character. I had evidence.

I took the matter further to the executive. No acceptable answer was given and key points removed from the minutes.

I asked democratic services to act and received a letter effectively stating that that collective council decisions don't count for individual breaches.

My request for the previous £100m contract from Alistair Corrie was dismissed out of hand, as was my Freedom of Information request to democratic services. It then dropped by 5% to £95m after I got the Information Commissioners Office involved and a redacted version came forth. I gather from another activist that we may be able to access a fuller version owing to the level of Public interest.

Weeks after pointing out a conflict of interest regarding our £2.2m yearly IT contract, there was some computer down time and the contract was eliminated.

Have I saved us £millions in crony contracts already just asking for transparency?

Something ain't right.

You have to put into context what a Borough Councillors is 'supposed' to be.

You . . with real job and not neglecting your family are supposed to be the borough councillor

Most people do not understand what a borough councillor is, hardly surprising since the roles are so poorly advertised.

We have a well paid employed council with our chief executive Andy Couldrick on just under £160k (with several deputies on a bit less). 

Your 'elected councillor' is supposed to be a representative member of your community who ensures that the employed council carries out our wishes / best interests and in a transparent manner subject to our scrutiny.

We no longer seem to have that in Wokingham. We have 'paid volunteers' competing to win for their political team. People who somehow find the time and resources to knock on 1000's of doors delivering leaflets (This is not you!) only to then block information you have a right to, appoint contractors to spin consumer data and put up dishonest posters.(This is also not you!)

How do I find out about my candidates?

Well not blindly trusting a charismatic sales person backed by vested interest money on your doorstep. Don't exclude everyone who has NOT paid to send you and 6000 other people a personal letter. Your candidate is supposed to be a neighbour willing to do you a favour.

It is unfortunate that the local council still does not provide a candidate website with an image and a set number of words for each candidate. Both unfortunate and telling (watch this space).

Until we have convinced our democratic services department to provide this essential democratic service we should at least be willing to google the name, town and ward for each of our candidates.

Why is what candidates put online more honest than what they say on the doorstep?

Simple. Public domain information. Would you hand £2,000 to a nice sounding chap because he told you he would perhaps clean your roof tiles one day in the next 4 years? No, you would expect a contract, seek other quotes and compare what commitments such as time scales were in the contract.

While the website is no contract, should you wish to complain it would not be a case of he said she said. I have first hand evidence that you can not rely on a councillor to remember that which he wishes to forget even in a public place, and even the leader of the opposition sided with him too! (The plot thickens)

A manifesto is a kind of contract!

If it were lib-dems would have voted against higher tuition fees, Tories for more wind farms and solar subsidies  as well as a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

That is not to say your particular candidate will break their manifesto pledges, but they can, and do, even if they lead the party.

Not very democratic is it?


Imagine if a sandwich maker could advertise anything in a 4 year sandwich contract, then supply anything or even nothing, not even try, and you have to keep paying for the full four years.

That's what we have let our democracy become. How did our parents let this happen? Will we leave the same mess to our children?

You have a solution?

Yep! And it's just common sense.

SMART-voter.org (look into it later)

It's basically choosing only candidates committed to providing a clear list of true obligations, such as how they will vote on an issue, for you to compare. Anything less is not really democracy is it?

I've asked a lot of local political characters to sign up to SMART-voter.org. People who usually have an answer for everything.

When you tell them you're a SMART-voter.org and ask if they are SMART-voter.org friendly the dialogues suddenly just stop. At best you get politely ignored with a link to a manifesto and the reply 'This is pretty SMART' or some other way of avoiding answering your question.

This tells me 2 things.

  1. It can work.
  2. They're politicians first and honest representatives second.

How's this for a cool tattoo?

What about you Kaz?

There is no downside in voting for me. I will be 1 voice in 53. You'll finally have one voice insisting that the council should be more transparent and accountable. If the council is presently full of honest well meaning people, good decisions will continue to be made. Mark Ashwell will continue to be an enthusiastic sponsor of local events, even if he can't act on his vested interest in owning a windows and conservatory company surrounded by properties built by developers who owe him one.

I can't change the monthly motions if the majority is of vested interest leaders and their blind followers. My best hope is to introduce the risk of repercussion from self interested voting.

If my motions are rejected then the councillors who rejected them will be on video breaching their code (again). I hope this time you become more active.

I have lots of good obligations in my 7 sides A4 SMART-voter.org promise list. So download it and get a feel for how responsible democracy should look. (eventually it should be a database, you check your policies and compatible candidates are listed but lets start with the concept of transparent obligations)
I ask you to be a SMART-voter.org. Ask other candidates to do the same.

Consider standing yourself on the SMART-voter.org ticket next year.

I'm not asking you to vote for me.

I want the person best able to and most likely to push the agenda of Evendons ward residents, and what is in their fair best interests on matters they have not been able to be consulted.

That may not be me. But do at least expect a better candidate to provide you with transparent obligations as I have.

Then you can make an educated decision.

Without an educated decision, you do not have a democracy.

Thank you for your time.



Spot the politician who can't answer a simple question.

My flyer.

Follow me on twitter.


A video of a hot bloke.

Like the SMART-voter.org Facebook page to find things to print and stick on your door.

A bit about me.

A bit about my politics.

Here is some info for someone honest who might stand for election in future.


Friday, 14 March 2014

Found another one. Brian Grady. Does he have something to hide or just following Tory councils lead?

Space for Brian should be justify his decision.
Did you hear that the South of Wokingham Free School group is doing a presentation on Wednesday 19th of March at 19:30 at FBC.
Me neither if it was not for the Facebook group.
SOW would like it to filmed.
FBC have no objection to filming public meetings.
Councillors have a code of conduct to support transparency unless clearly in the public interest not to do so.
Eric Pickles has issued guidelines to allow filming, blogging etc.
I have decided to ignore councillors abusing their authority and saying no to filming pubic meetings in public places, surely those same people are the most likely to be abusing their situation in other ways too, even if it is to win unwarranted goodwill.
Unfortunately FBC is a private venue, like the Bradbury centre. FBC will be asked to refuse, have the right to refuse and sympathetically said that they do not want trouble but will choose as the customer asks. The customer in authority is Brian Grady. Annoyingly someone who has no right to tell them to refuse.


We know the risks of filming. Dramatisation and demonstrations.

Those actions impact negatively on the people doing it, especially if the council have sensible answers. Interested members of the public soon drive the meeting forwards if those making a fuss are just causing a disturbance.

I have filmed many meetings with permission and there was never a disturbance. I have filmed a few the council decided to try and block. Then there is a disturbance. They cause it.

The benefits of filming is that the presentation is captured for all to see whenever they wish, even listen to it while doing chores as a podcast Answers given become a matter of public record so cheap promises and white lies can not be used by the council officers to deflect hard questioning. If they do not have a good answer the can say it and come back with one.

Perhaps this is why Brian Grady is willing to breach the council code of conduct and government guidelines and keep those of you who can not attend out?

The question is then . . why does your council do the same. Is that what YOU want?

I understand that there is a team workshop component. I'm assuming everyone with common sense can think of many solutions regarding individuals who wish not to be filmed or even the workshop component at all. The council mantra seem to be, if in doubt say 'No' to everything.

Your email has been passed to me by Democratic Services.
The meeting isn't being filmed as the session is information sharing and is a workshop so not ideal format for filming. We are not allowing anyone to film as a number of people have already indicated to us they do not wish to be filmed.
Andrea Jenkins
Strategic Communications Lead

I love the line "As a number of people have already indicated to use they do not wish to be filmed".

Were attendees asked? Apparently not.

This line for me is the big giveaway.

Should presenting council staff get to choose? Not if you want a democracy no.



Thursday, 13 March 2014

Why. Because I'm worried this chap is negotiating £800 million that should be for the community and local economy down to £200 milion.

Below is an e-mail exchange between myself and Keith Baker complete with spelling mistakes starting at the bottom on the 17th of July. Best to work your way up.

Why have I posted this. Well yesterday the Wokingham Times removed a comment referring to this situation and Keith, as dishonest as usual, ties to give the public impression that he has not idea why he has been singled out as dishonest. I hope this and other posts evidence the history that he started when he first decided to block the filming of the South Wokingham Public forum I had requested to film after I found the comment "I am here to facilitate this development, not solve your traffic problems" was not in the minutes.

I then started looking for why such secretive people were 'volunteering' to represent the public so aggressively.


I am so surprised you would not post my comment on your blog! Clearly you do not want to publicise my comments in the interest of transparency. 

You say you blogged my lie. If that is the case then you should be transparent and add my side to your accusation. But you absolutely refuse to do this. I wonder why?

Your wild accusations are completely baseless and get more and more ludicrous each response. 

It is absolutely clear that you will never be prepared to provide evidence of your accusations and to be prepared to allow me to state my side of the argument. 

Therefore I am going to leave you with your fantasy world and I'll take my chances with residents. 

Best wishes


Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Jun 2013, at 03:23 PM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

I would like to but you appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it. None of your public consultayions have been suitably advertised and there is no honest accointable recordbof whatbis said. This was your choice. Every week I get an e-mail from the school with the events coming up this month. I have a loggin for school places. To have an input in negotiations over the who gets what of around of £1.3 billion of planning profit...nothing.

Speaking at tge school Fete today. Nopne knows anything and guess what. It is your job to hold a 'public' consultation and onvite the public in duvh a way that the majority may be awaire. And if you deligate it to a strategic partner then it is their responsibility.

As yet this has not been dpne and I've yet to speak to a real memeber of the public who feels it has.

But I guess you don't care abput that and will continue not to right this wrong.

So. Lets get this straight. I do not wish to blog. I blogged your lie. I did not sell your excuses

But people like me are needed to expose people like you seem to be. The Wokingham Times left out my condemnatoon how tge public is made aware abd my call to arms.

It would appear that investigative reporting is off limits and therefore I can only assume you have control of that too.

I may be wrong. But only your actions can proove it.

Regarding the point. You know the puublic are nit filmed yet continue to labour the same point. Never try to quard the concerns of the person you have invented. Thus you flag yourself as acting as one corrup would once more.

I go away when you do your civic duty.

On 22 Jun 2013 11:36, "KJ Baker"  wrote:
So you agree to publish in full on your blog then. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Jun 2013, at 10:51 AM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

Yes. I have nothing to hide. Share it all.

On 22 Jun 2013 09:37, "Keith Baker"  wrote:
I had always believed you were basically an honest person and actually believed in total transparency in this whole scenario. After all this is the whole thrust of your argument. Whilst we have differing views about the rights of the individuals attending any of these meetings I have never personally objected to anyone filming.  However, your action on your BLOG when I posted a comment has significantly changed my opinion.
That posting was totally factual, did not contain any insults or implied criticism of you but you decided to ignore the posting totally and extract a sentence, out of context, in to your own commentary. Where is the openness or transparency in this? In not publishing this in your BLOG you are doing precisely what you have constantly accused me of. You are shielding your readers from facts that are counter to your argument. I think you call it evidence.
In contrast I have a track record of doing precisely what I have always said I would do. If everyone in attendance was in agreement then filming was allowed otherwise it would not.  As you acknowledge the last North Wokingham Forum was filmed which cuts right across your accusations on me. If what you accuse me of doing then why would I allow this one to be filmed, after all as you have previously accused me of I could have arranged for a simple plant to say no.
You say below:
All communication between you I and your friends will be public as your character is very much in the public interest
Which is very interesting as you declined to put my full posting on your blog. So I guess this means that “all communication between you and I will be public – unless it is counter to my conspiracy argument!”
Best wishes
From: Kazek Lokuciewski 
Sent: 18 June 2013 19:18
To: KJ Baker
Subject: Re: Filming of public meetings and council.
If you cared about Democratic legitimacy we would not be in this situation where evidence of lies is stopped from being gathered to protect the electorate from self interest.

I now understand why you are so anti recording it. Evidence. You do not wan't evidence of you saying what ever it takes to get the public off the scent, and then not act upon what was said.

If that is not the case then you would respect that it is important to gather the material and share it with video.

On 18 Jun 2013 11:36, "KJ Baker"  wrote:
I ask you again to provide me with your address so that my solicitor can contact you over the slander you have written on me copied the press. 
You have called me a liar which is a slander. 
I have nothing to hide and my character is totally out in open. In contrast yours is not. Furthermore I at least have a democratic legitimacy since I was elected. You have not. 
So I ask you again for your address for my solicitors to write to you. 
Or you can issue a unreserved apology for calling me a liar. 
Sorry but you simply cannot go around calling people liars without any consequence. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 18 Jun 2013, at 10:14 AM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

Oh contrair. I never lie and live my life as openly as possible.

All comminication between you I and your friends will be public as your character is cery much in the public interest.

Ill take out your personal e-mail as it is the decent thing to do.

On 18 Jun 2013 10:07, "KJ Baker"  wrote:
I think you have now stepped over the mark by accusing me personally of lying. 
Therefore I will be consulting my solicitor on a personal basis with a view  to taking legal action Against you. 
Can you please provide an address that any communications from my solicitor to you can be sent. 
As you copied the press into this email I will be using them as the evidence that you have done so. I have already spoken to them on this matter. 
Alternatively you can apologise unreservedly and I will take no further action. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 18 Jun 2013, at 09:39 AM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

You seem very confident. I hope you would not make any costly tax payer decisions with this level of confidence since I have proof you are either lying or mistaken.

Anyway. You don't 'Make up the rules' any more. Someone higher up than you has seen fit to close yet another route for officials to act with less accountability than they should.

The sad thing is how active you have been in oposition to something those who elected you would welcome, but profiteers would hate.

The North Wokingham Film shows how non intrusive the process of filming is.

We can either keep my filming to full unedited shared copyright as same as is the decent thing or publishing just the juicy bits as is my right.

Which way I go on decency depend if you are willing to join me on that pedistall. Notifying attendees of events with posters outside supermarkets and thatbthey will be filmed for online duscussion.

Not those are the rules. I know becuase I made them up. And sure, even though there is undisputable evidence Im wrong.

On 18 Jun 2013 09:24, "KJ Baker"  wrote:
As the person who set the rules I know what I set. This was communicated to you but you dispute this. 
We have a fundamental difference of opinion here. I regard the views of the attendees as important. After all they took the time to attend. You regard their views as of no relevance against your own personal opinion. I think you had an example of my view being more relevant at the S Wokingham Forum where you were politely told to be quiet so that the meeting could start. 
I respect your personal opinion, even though I disagree with it. I wish you would do the same curtesy to me. 
So as I said nothing has changed and the established rules will continue. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 18 Jun 2013, at 08:57 AM, Kazek Lokuciewski wrote:

Keith. How sure are you that the Northern one required a unanimous vote in the rules you made up?

Which you did not loose. The fair and decent thing was allowed. This is about decency. Nothing more.

Much as I like you your wild accusations are getting ridiculous. You constantly throw out things like you have below without any shred of evidence. 
I am glad you copied the Times on your email as it allows me to challenge you head on on unsubstantiated accusations. If you have any evidence, no matter how small, please pass it onto the press. I have repeated this challenge many many times. 
As I expected and continually expect you will not provide any evidence because there is none. 
I will be taking legal advice on your constant allegations as you request. 
So as I said before the rules on this will remain the same. If a single attendee or presenter does not wish to be filmed then filming will not be allowed. We have had 3 votes on this and you have won one unanimously, lost one unanimously and lost one by one vote. 
Again I repeat my request for details of this government action!

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Jun 2013, at 10:50 PM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

As far as I can see, regarding the blocking of filming, your abuse of authority and inappropriate behavior given your close relationship with the developers has been stopped by the government. They obviously are concerned as I am about the risks.
getwokingham. I would be grateful if the professionals could give both Keith and I guidance on this.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:06 PM, KJ Baker  wrote:
I am sorry to be a bit slow but what is the legal basis of you saying you have the legal right to film?
Until you can provide this then nothing has changed. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Jun 2013, at 09:41 PM, Kazek Lokuciewski  wrote:

Google filming council meetings. Telegraph sums it up nicely.

On 17 Jun 2013 20:38, "KJ Baker" > wrote:
Can you please explain why you think this?

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Jun 2013, at 07:37 PM, Kazek Lokuciewski wrote:

Hi David / Keith
As you may have noticed the public have just been given the right to film all meetings the public can attend and use as they see fit.
There are several coming up and I intend to film what I can.
Please let me know if there is going to be any attempt by the council to restrict the filming.
I have also had no feedback on the publishing of this film.
After the shoot I gave a verbal agreement to allowing WokinghamBC share the content. Since then I have had no feedback, the Wokingham times had become facebook only so there is still no open platform for public engagement.
It is now my intention to share the video on my WokinghamVoice channel.
If you have any objections please explain them in a reply e-mail.

How can we be sure cronies are not negotiating SDL section 106 agreements?

I have made no effort to hide that I am concerned by the motives of our council. My concern is that cronies have occupied the entire chain of selection scrutiny over planning or individuals have been selected who will not check through a combination of trust, time and insufficient information.

We have about £1.3 billion pound of planning profit tied up in the SDL's and that is a big reason for land owning trusts and developers to make sure the right people control the planning process.

Question 1. How much planing permission profit (land value change with planning permission) should a developer / land owner be allowed to keep?

Question 2. What level of planning permission profit would be enough to generate a market for cronies in occupy enough positions in the council to have complete control of contracts?

Luckily, we are in the UK and have a policy of public transparency. Effectively ensuring their is a risk of discovery from cronies in politics. Unfortunately councils all over the UK have started to use 'Commercial confidentiality' on everything as an acceptable reason to hide their deals and Wokingham is no exception.

I recently made a Freedom of information request for the average S106 contribution per dwelling for each of the SDL's components and details of how we ensure that the negotiations scrutinized suitably.

My mission is to ensure that they are not conducted by people who are working for the developers and are not scrutinized by the same or well nurtured people who lack the information / time to perform their oversight with due diligence.

Given the inability of us to trace money from various sources the only evidence we have is the profitability allowed and over and above the cost of compulsory purchases and selling the plots with planning. Given that the choice to develop is theoretically a national requirement the

History of Council behavior unsuitable for a council.

My first concerns came from hear say stories and reports of Cllrs for sale in the media.

I was then concerned by anecdotal reports that public meetings had things said that were not included in the minutes (including Elm's field back in 2006).

To test that theory I decided to film public meetings, only to find that a particular elected Councillor Keith Baker was blocking filming. Breaking his code of conduct for and democratic services do nothing.

Cllr Baker used various reasons easily overcome excuses and eventually lied twice. 1 Regarding offering me to tender for the job of filming and 2. Having a 1 person objects / no filming policy. On challenging this with Wokingham Times included he threatened to sue me, so I gave him the evidence,.

This concerns me as to his suitability as a representative of the people and not developers, or being mistaken in such a way that would lead me to be concerned as to his capability as executive for planning and highways.

After guidance from Eric Pickles and my own insistence that blocking filming would be met with a citizen arrest, allowed to under very strict conditions that would allow vested interests to block filming, finally, after further negotiation and clarification we came to an acceptable version designed to limit disturbance and give the council a way out if their was an extreme. They however maintained the ability to control the records of planning and scrutiny meetings by blocking them from being filmed.

So I asked them about that in an executive meeting. For which the answer was one concern over exposure to the unknown and that in one year time it will be reviewed. To which I expressed that those in support of blocking filming are in breach of their code of conduct as Councillors. This was not denied.

One rule was not to move the camera. Which my colleague did between two sections of the first executive meeting filmed so that those asking questions and answering could be filmed at the beginning, and then the full executive in the second half.

Disturbingly this camera movement, though completely justifiable and met with logic and agreement before the Cllrs arrive was met with childlike unreasonable obsession by a few of them after the camera had stopped "What is important is the rules" was the line from Executive Andy Couldrick.

What about the rule that council is required to support transparency unless clearly in the public interest not to do so?

Tuesday, 11 March 2014

If establishment breach civil rights to suppress democracy, do good brave people have any choice but civil disobedience?

From Wokingham Times http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/election-hopefuls-condemn-plan-put-6799721

Copy and pasted should they ever take it down since it evidences of the most heinous and transparent attempts of the entrenched establishment to undermine the democratic process. Quite possibly illegally.


Election hopefuls condemn plan to put restraint on canvassing in Woodley
Candidates can only meet the public in Woodley after the countdown to May's borough elections begins, after new rules were set by town centre bosses

A restraint limiting political and religious groups’ presence in Woodley precinct has sparked a hostile reaction from election hopefuls.

Political parties can only meet the public once in the countdown to May’s borough elections, under a new restriction set by Woodley’s Town Centre Management Initiative (TCMI).

The regulation is being challenged by indignant councillors and campaigners who argue the rule can’t be imposed on the public space and threatens important political and religious freedom.
Conservative councillors have applied to canvass in the town centre the Saturday before spring’s election, a move which could deny Liberal Democrat and Labour rivals appearing in the precinct on the key weekend.

Beth Rowland, leader of the Liberal Democrat group in Woodley said: “The democratic process is poor enough anyway without banning people from being able to engage with the public.

“We have a right to free speech and they are trying to stop people speaking.

“Political and religious freedoms are two freedoms we should defend.”

Under the rule, political parties can engage with the public in the town centre one Saturday prior to an election, with slots filled on a first come first served basis.

Religious groups can promote themselves one day per year at a cost of £20.

Conservative town council leader Councillor Keith Baker is not outraged by the ruling and has written to the town centre manager requesting his party has the option of appearing in the precinct on the Saturday before May’s election.

Cllr Baker said: “I wouldn’t have a problem with there being a blanket ban on political parties [in the precinct]. People should be able to go about their business without being pestered by politicians. I would go with whatever is decided.”

Nicky Jerome, Labour’s borough council candidate for Bulmershe and Whitegates, said: “I think it is hugely important that political parties are able to campaign freely to give the electorate a fair choice.
“In the past, Woodley Labour Party have had stalls in Woodley precinct, such as when we ran a successful petition to secure the promise of new toilets in the precinct, gathering around 1,600 signatures.

“It seems unfair the Conservatives have been able to book the precinct on the last Saturday in the run up to the local elections on May 22 before we even knew about the decision.

“I feel at such an important time, people should be given the chance to hear a variety of points of view as they consider how they want to vote.”

Town centre manager Jacques Lherbier declined to comment on the issue as TCMI’s committee is preparing to answer comments submitted in light of the ruling.


Saturday 17th May. Lets all go and ask them who the hell they think they are. Then have a coffee and an apple danish.