There is a meeting of the NTC full council on Monday 22nd September. The Council's own rules require them to publish the agenda three clear working days before the meeting to give us, the tax-paying schmos who they are accountable to, the opportunity to ask pertinent informed questions. Not telling us what they're going to discuss is quite an effective way of discouraging questions, and I would imagine that with all the goings on at the council there'll be a few engaged individuals still willing to risk the public humiliation of a Vexatious Complainant designation in order to hold their council to account

Perhaps they will inform us of the good news that the fierce fight over Parkgate has finally been concluded and for only the cost of £100000.
Trebles all round!

Agenda is out now.

They're electing a new deputy leader to replace RUP. Plenty of choice for weak-willed establishment apologists so it'll soon be business as usual again. Tony Stretton was quite prescient if I remember about RUP's unsuitability for the role, so I would imagine he's a popular candidate this time round.

No mention of the "confidentiality agreement" so that's all safely under the carpet now.

Martha Vickers is giving an update on the town council's plans for Local Democracy Week which this year is emphasising participatory democracy, so I would imagine the council will want to be thinking about how they empower the community to engage with their local democracy and the obstacles to that such as the rampant victimisation of those who have tried. Or they could just invite a bunch of 11 year-olds in to the town hall to try on the mayor's robes, that would probably do.

If, as a tax-paying parishioner, you want to ask a question at a council meeting remember that you have to submit your question for consideration so that a suitable answer can be prepared. Obviously, if a councillor wants to use the platform of a council meeting to attack any particular tax-paying parishioner then the courtesy isn't reciprocated, but we really should know our place, and to be honest it's a privilege just to be remembered.

Can we film it?

Minister Pickles has decreed that this is now permitted.
Was confirmed at Parish Council Meeting I attended this week.

Would be good to see members of NTC squirming under interrogation by some of the great unwashed, knowing it may well end up on YouTube for posterity, wider circulation.

It's your right to film it, yes, and you have a right to post that footage with a commentary critical of the council, but if you do, and if the council can identify you, then they may well victimise you.

The council victimised me for asserting my right to fair contract terms and for criticising them for the outrageously high cost to the tax-payer of the council-managed allotment service, but they were willing to let me keep my allotment if I would sign a secret no-criticism agreement with them. You might possibly hope to avoid victimisation if you signed up to the council's no-criticism agreement:



Quite what that "prior discussion" would involve and whether you'd then feel quite so free to publish your critical or negative "pronouncements" afterwards I couldn't say as I didn't sign the agreement, but I think it's as well that you were aware of how the council feel about being criticised.

It's that bit that really concerns me deeply. The CEO is merely a salaried servant of the Council and had absolutely no authority to act like this. It's also worrying that the local LibDems, who nationally (rightly) uphold and fight to protect fundamental freedoms and rights haven't seen how wrong this is.

It wasn't the council clerk personally, he was just the officer appointed by the council to have that "prior discussion", the tyranny is entirely with the council corporately and collectively - and yes, it doesn't surprise me that Tories would condone this kind of thing as it's the Tory party that wants to repeal all of those civil rights that the council find so irksome, but I am disappointed that councillors representing the Liberal Democrat Party should sell out the founding principles of that party without demur, and utterly appalled how the local party, to a man, can stay silent at such tyranny. It's not that I expect anyone to just believe me, but surely the evidence is enough to ask whether or not there might have been the tyranny that I have so consistently complained of?

It's the Liberal Democrat Party that stands for personal rights and freedoms, and it's because those principles found the party so fundamentally that I joined, and it's because I believe in those principles so passionately that I've spoken up.

This is Linda Jack, standing for Lib Dem Party President:


Yet the Lib Dem town council seeks to protect the overbearing state from the vulnerable.

Yes, in effect our local democracy is in the hands of those who pay no heed to their party values let alone our constitution. What hope have we for the future? I'm back to spoiling my ballot paper.

Yes but I expect this was before an election , this is just the sales blurb, politicians will promise anything before an election to get elected. Just as sales people and financiers will do anything, not matter how odious, to get more bucks.
It would not surprise me in the least if a politician claimed they had some special snake oil and it would cure any ailment but only if they managed to get elected?
I find there is no difference between any of the parties except how they are going to relieve us of more money without too many complaints?
To be sure the LibLiars have proven they are no different than the other two main parties they will promise anything and then renege completely to enable them to get a seat at the main table around the trough.
I fail to understand why we have legislation for Trading Standards, Contracts etc. and yet no legislation controlling what politicians dream up for their manifestos and yet have no intentions of carrying out. Is this not a form of unfair contract?

Yes but I expect this was before an election , this is just the sales blurb, politicians will promise anything before an election to get elected. Just as sales people and financiers will do anything, not matter how odious, to get more bucks.
It would not surprise me in the least if a politician claimed they had some special snake oil and it would cure any ailment but only if they managed to get elected?
I find there is no difference between any of the parties except how they are going to relieve us of more money without too many complaints?
To be sure the LibLiars have proven they are no different than the other two main parties they will promise anything and then renege completely to enable them to get a seat at the main table around the trough.
I fail to understand why we have legislation for Trading Standards, Contracts etc. and yet no legislation controlling what politicians dream up for their manifestos and yet have no intentions of carrying out. Is this not a form of unfair contract?