Sunday, 10 August 2014

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.
 
 
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
 
Israel drone engines manufactured in Staffordshire
 
Hamas government fanatasism.
 
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.
 
2013 £12b military exports to oppressive regimes.
 
Palestine / Gaza population

Tuesday, 27 May 2014

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.



Saturday, 10 May 2014

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.
 
 
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.
 

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

Tuesday, 29 April 2014

Dear Kaz,
 
Your Wokingham Voice video footage of the North Wokingham Community Forum on Monday January 20 has been edited to include a slide referring to fracking that is on screen for the first minute of the video. This is misleading as no mention of fracking was made at the meeting and it is also contravenes the protocol (attached), under which you are permitted to film these meeting, which states: ‘Video footage of the public meeting should be published unedited and in its entirety’.
 
Would you please remove the slide and confirm that you will be not be editing footage recorded at meetings in future.
 
Yours,
 
David
 
David Allen Partnership Development Officer Wokingham Borough Council Shute End Wokingham Tel: (0118) 974 6066
Mob: 07757 281 836
www.wokingham.gov.uk
 




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

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

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

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


 
 

Kazek Lokuciewski


 
 
Hi David.

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

The text from the contract I saw originally was 'Not to Be misleading"

And I accept that the wording I used originally might suggest that Fracking was approved in this meeting so I have changed it.

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

If the council can offer a solution to the Fracking issue I am happy to do an interview.

Regards

Kaz


On 28 Jan 2014 10:00, "David Allen (communications)" <> wrote:
Dear Kaz,
 
Your Wokingham Voice video footage of the North Wokingham Community Forum on Monday January 20 has been edited to include a slide referring to fracking that is on screen for the first minute of the video. This is misleading as no mention of fracking was made at the meeting and it is also contravenes the protocol (attached), under which you are permitted to film these meeting, which states: ‘Video footage of the public meeting should be published unedited and in its entirety’.
 
Would you please remove the slide and confirm that you will be not be editing footage recorded at meetings in future.
 
Yours,
 
David
 
 
 


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

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

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

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

David Allen (communications)

Jan 28
to me, Andrea
Dear Kaz,
 
Thanks for your reply.
 
The key issue is the text (annotation) added to the broadcast of this forum and, while I appreciate you making the change, we must ask you again to remove all extraneous comment/text from these films. My understanding is that you film and broadcast these meetings in order to increase transparency and improve the public’s understanding of the issues - but adding any comment,  description or advertising of other issues is counterproductive to those aims as it is potentially misleading and confusing. It also contravenes the protocol that requires there be ‘no editing’ - and the fact is that fracking was not discussed at this forum and should, therefore, not form any part of your broadcast of it.
 
We can deal with the issue of ‘entirety’ at a later date as there is a difference between the BBC (or anybody else) using a brief video clip of a meeting without sound to illustrate a news story and you (or anybody else) recording and broadcasting what has actually been said – in which case we do require it to be in entirety.
 
Yours,
 
David
 
 
 
 
From: Kazek Lokuciewski [mailto:]
Sent: 28 January 2014 10:38
To: David Allen (communications)
Subject: Re: Video footage from North Wokingham Community Forum meeting ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~
 
Hi David.
 
When was in it's entirety added? Editing this down into key points is what will make them accessible. Few of your constituents are able to sit through 3 hours. This is an important part of transparency "Information prepared in a manner suitable for consumption". This is irrelevant at the moment but not in future since people may only film segments (as did the BBC for the Extraordinary meeting) they did not film or provide in its entirety, they were not misleading.
 
The text from the contract I saw originally was 'Not to Be misleading"
 
And I accept that the wording I used originally might suggest that Fracking was approved in this meeting so I have changed it.
 
While this is technical jargon that text is an 'Annotaion' I kind on comment you can displays over the video and can be changed on a whim. I have changed this to make sure that the issues I have 'Advertised on My Channel' over unedited video while the introductions are being made to consumers who are interested in local governance do not suggest anything is being suggested in this video.
 
If the council can offer a solution to the Fracking issue I am happy to do an interview.
 
Regards
 
Kaz
 
 
On 28 Jan 2014 10:00, "David Allen (communications)" <> wrote:
Dear Kaz,
 
Your Wokingham Voice video footage of the North Wokingham Community Forum on Monday January 20 has been edited to include a slide referring to fracking that is on screen for the first minute of the video. This is misleading as no mention of fracking was made at the meeting and it is also contravenes the protocol (attached), under which you are permitted to film these meeting, which states: ‘Video footage of the public meeting should be published unedited and in its entirety’.
 
Would you please remove the slide and confirm that you will be not be editing footage recorded at meetings in future.
 
Yours,
 
David
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Click here to report this email as spam.
4 older messages

Kazek Lokuciewski 

Jan 28 (9 days ago)
to David
Ill have to look into this. Eric Pickles was most ckear that bloggers would be able to make short clips and make comments.
I'm happy to remove this text from here and add it to blogg like edits where,  without misleading,  I dicuss issues and include relevent clips as evidence, each clip eith an annotation that links to the full master, but I will beed assurence that you are not attempting to block me publicizing any issue I feel should be discussed. That planning and scruitiny us still being blocked to me should that the full council are in breach if their constitution. It would be unwize if someone unfinaced such as myself to allow a powerfull organisation to decide on things they have no right to decide. The statenent is nit misskeading. I have advertised a transparency probkem and solution.  In this instance you will have to find an elected councillor to take responsibility for the request and explain why it is nit in breach if Eric Pickles guidelines and transparancy constitution.
On 28 Jan 2014 12:00, "David Allen (communications)" <> wrote:
Dear Kaz,
 
Thanks for your reply.
 
The key issue is the text (annotation) added to the broadcast of this forum and, while I appreciate you making the change, we must ask you again to remove all extraneous comment/text from these films. My understanding is that you film and broadcast these meetings in order to increase transparency and improve the public’s understanding of the issues - but adding any comment,  description or advertising of other issues is counterproductive to those aims as it is potentially misleading and confusing. It also contravenes the protocol that requires there be ‘no editing’ - and the fact is that fracking was not discussed at this forum and should, therefore, not form any part of your broadcast of it.
 
We can deal with the issue of ‘entirety’ at a later date as there is a difference between the BBC (or anybody else) using a brief video clip of a meeting without sound to illustrate a news story and you (or anybody else) recording and broadcasting what has actually been said – in which case we do require it to be in entirety.
 
Yours,
 
David
 
 
 
 
From: Kazek Lokuciewski [mailto:]
Sent: 28 January 2014 10:38
To: David Allen (communications)
Subject: Re: Video footage from North Wokingham Community Forum meeting ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~
 
Hi David.
 
When was in it's entirety added? Editing this down into key points is what will make them accessible. Few of your constituents are able to sit through 3 hours. This is an important part of transparency "Information prepared in a manner suitable for consumption". This is irrelevant at the moment but not in future since people may only film segments (as did the BBC for the Extraordinary meeting) they did not film or provide in its entirety, they were not misleading.
 
The text from the contract I saw originally was 'Not to Be misleading"
 
And I accept that the wording I used originally might suggest that Fracking was approved in this meeting so I have changed it.
 
While this is technical jargon that text is an 'Annotaion' I kind on comment you can displays over the video and can be changed on a whim. I have changed this to make sure that the issues I have 'Advertised on My Channel' over unedited video while the introductions are being made to consumers who are interested in local governance do not suggest anything is being suggested in this video.
 
If the council can offer a solution to the Fracking issue I am happy to do an interview.
 
Regards
 
Kaz
 
 
On 28 Jan 2014 10:00, "David Allen (communications)" <> wrote:
Dear Kaz,
 
Your Wokingham Voice video footage of the North Wokingham Community Forum on Monday January 20 has been edited to include a slide referring to fracking that is on screen for the first minute of the video. This is misleading as no mention of fracking was made at the meeting and it is also contravenes the protocol (attached), under which you are permitted to film these meeting, which states: ‘Video footage of the public meeting should be published unedited and in its entirety’.
 
Would you please remove the slide and confirm that you will be not be editing footage recorded at meetings in future.
 
Yours,
 
David
 
 
 
 

Andrea Jenkins

Jan 29 (8 days ago)
to me, David
Dear Kaz
 
Yesterday we asked you to remove a slide on your Wokingham Voice video footage of the North Wokingham Community Forum on Monday January 20 as it was a breach of our protocol.  You had added commentary which could lead to misinterpretation of the proceedings and this is clearly explained in the protocol that this is unacceptable.
 
You have not removed it, and instead have replaced it with further commentary. As a result of this, we are withdrawing the permission granted to you to film at tonight’s South Wokingham Community Forum. 
 
We are currently reviewing the position of filming community forum meetings including whether we undertake filming directly ourselves.
 
Regards
Andrea
 
 
Andrea Jenkins
Strategic Communications Lead
Wokingham Direct
Wokingham Borough Council
Shute End, Wokingham, RG40 1BN
Tel: (0118) 974 6010
Mobile: 07919 395076
Fax: (0118) 978 5053
 
From: David Allen (communications)
Sent: 28 January 2014 10:00
To: Kazek Lokuciewski ()
Cc: Andrea Jenkins
Subject: Video footage from North Wokingham Community Forum meeting ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~
 
Dear Kaz,
 
Your Wokingham Voice video footage of the North Wokingham Community Forum on Monday January 20 has been edited to include a slide referring to fracking that is on screen for the first minute of the video. This is misleading as no mention of fracking was made at the meeting and it is also contravenes the protocol (attached), under which you are permitted to film these meeting, which states: ‘Video footage of the public meeting should be published unedited and in its entirety’.
 
Would you please remove the slide and confirm that you will be not be editing footage recorded at meetings in future.
 
Yours,
 
David
 
 


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

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

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

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

Kazek Lokuciewski 

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



On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Andrea Jenkins <> wrote:
Dear Kaz
 
Yesterday we asked you to remove a slide on your Wokingham Voice video footage of the North Wokingham Community Forum on Monday January 20 as it was a breach of our protocol.  You had added commentary which could lead to misinterpretation of the proceedings and this is clearly explained in the protocol that this is unacceptable.
 
You have not removed it, and instead have replaced it with further commentary. As a result of this, we are withdrawing the permission granted to you to film at tonight’s South Wokingham Community Forum. 
 
We are currently reviewing the position of filming community forum meetings including whether we undertake filming directly ourselves.
 
Regards
Andrea
 
 
Andrea Jenkins
Strategic Communications Lead
Wokingham Direct
Wokingham Borough Council
Shute End, Wokingham, RG40 1BN
Tel: (0118) 974 6010
Mobile: 07919 395076
Fax: (0118) 978 5053
 
From: David Allen (communications)
Sent: 28 January 2014 10:00
To: Kazek Lokuciewski ()
Cc: Andrea Jenkins
Subject: Video footage from North Wokingham Community Forum meeting ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~
 
Dear Kaz,
 
Your Wokingham Voice video footage of the North Wokingham Community Forum on Monday January 20 has been edited to include a slide referring to fracking that is on screen for the first minute of the video. This is misleading as no mention of fracking was made at the meeting and it is also contravenes the protocol (attached), under which you are permitted to film these meeting, which states: ‘Video footage of the public meeting should be published unedited and in its entirety’.
 
Would you please remove the slide and confirm that you will be not be editing footage recorded at meetings in future.
 
Yours,
 
David
 

 
 
 

Kazek Lokuciewski 

Jan 29 (8 days ago)
to Andrea
Regarding filming yourselves I have requested this over a year ago and offered to pay for the equipment. If you do not film yourself and share the material in full then you do not really have a leg to stand on when I have a civil right to film matters of public interest in a public place.

I agreed to your rules since they were and still are sensible. I have using my efforts to promote democracy and in no way have mislead the public and fortunately the law is on my side. Your rules require that for filming to be not allowed it must be by a councillor who explains why it is clearly in the publics best interest that the information is not shared.

Failing that someone may film tonight.