What Newbury Town Council thinks of you, The gloves are off! Options

[Simon Kirby]

The board is owned by the Society.

The notice that got me banned was warning allotmenteers that the Council could be planning a 33% increase in rents, and were they to do so I would have organised a protest. I had posted other notices encouraging allotmenteers to consider self-management.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act guarantees my freedom of expression, and that certainly extends to a freedom to criticise the state.

Article 11 of the Human Rights Act guarantees my right of association which includes my right to organise a protest.

S.6 of the Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with my convention rights.

The Town Council act unlawfully by preventing me from posting notices critical of them, and by frustrating my attempts to organise a protest. However, enforcing those rights is another matter, because I'd have to take legal action in the High Court and being sensible about it, that's not going to happen.

[Simon Kirby]

Unfortunately I can't find the notice that so annoyed the Council, but this is what the Society wrote me when they padlocked the board:

The council have written to me directly on two occasions and [an officer] has also spoken to me directly. According to them the board was put up with your agreement as a Society board. They are fed up with it being used by you as a method of publishing what they consider to be your personal propaganda and set us an ultimatum that if it wasn't removed they would remove the board entirely. [the officer] is incensed about its content and its inaccuracy he says too. They also requested it be padlocked to ensure you don't post anything other that bonafide Society business in future. So we were set an ultimatum and I have stalled for several weeks now since you put it up and had to decide what to do.

The reason they are so annoyed and threatened us in this way is because, they say, that no figures or even discussions have taken place about rent increases for next year that you mention in your note.

[Simon Kirby]

To give you a flavour of previous notices this is one from July before the Council ratified the tenancy agreement:

New Tenancy Agreement

The Community Services Committee will vote on a new Tenancy Agreement on 26 July.

The important changes are:

• We no longer have to give any notice if we want to quit our plots.
• When we quit we can apply to have the remainder of our rent reimbursed.
• The Council have to give us a month's notice of any increase in rent.

None of this makes any real practical difference. What's happening here is that the Council are trying to exploit a loophole in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which otherwise makes it unlawful for the Council to increase our rent.

I complained to Trading Standards in January that this year's 47% rent increase was unfair under the Regulations and Trading Standards upheld my complaint. The Regulations (Schedule 2 S.1(k)) say that a rent review term like ours, which allows the landlord to impose an arbitrary increase, is unfair. However, the Regulations (Schedule 2 S.2(b )) allow the Council to impose an arbitrary increase if they are required to give us reasonable notice, and provided we're free to end the tenancy.

The Council are not happy to have been forced to make these changes because it forces them to acknowledge that the present rent review term is unfair. Worse than that, they imposed the increase in the full knowledge of the Regulations in the expectation that no one would be able to do anything about it.

You may be aware that I have refused to pay the increase and that the Council have served me with an eviction notice. It was an important enough point of principle that, were I wrong, I was willing to lose my plot. As it is I defied the Council to issue proceedings to recover possession or else relinquish their claim by default. No proceedings were issued.

It is the Council's intention to impose this new Tenancy Agreement on us as soon as it is ratified. They need to do this to legitimise this year's rent increase and avoid a repeat performance next year when they hike up the rents again - £25 per pole is their target remember. However, we are entitled to notice under the present Agreement and the Council cannot legitimately impose the new Agreement until 1st April 2012, and thereafter the earliest they can impose a rent increase is 1st April 2013.

Anyhoo, it's up to you now. It was my hope three years ago when I started the allotment society that by now we would have an active, engaged association with a site hut and toilet, a swanky new entrance gate, working parties cutting the grass, replanting the enclosure hedge and improving the ditches, and all at an affordable rate. The Council have deliberately frustrated that. I'm not too disappointed with that because it's in the nature of people with power to hoard it, but I am disappointed that I have so conspicuously failed to create the community which would so easily have overcome their opposition.

[Cognosco]

Without knowing what was posted we can't say can we?

Can you say now Dannboy?

[dannyboy]

Can you say now Dannboy?

I can say that we have seen one side of the argument.


but I am disappointed that I have so conspicuously failed to create the community

why is that? In principle I would have thought the idea of a hut, toilet etc etc would have been lapped up.

[Cognosco]

I can say that we have seen one side of the argument.


but I am disappointed that I have so conspicuously failed to create the community

why is that? In principle I would have thought the idea of a hut, toilet etc etc would have been lapped up.

So are you saying that the council was or was not right to ban him from posting notices on the Allotment Society notice board Dannyboy?

[Simon Kirby]

I can say that we have seen one side of the argument.


but I am disappointed that I have so conspicuously failed to create the community

why is that? In principle I would have thought the idea of a hut, toilet etc etc would have been lapped up.

They were indeed very popular proposals, the site loo especially - that had about 90% support. I suggest the Councillors who shafted the ideas might like to come on here and explain themselves.

I'm pretty sure I've said before, but wanting something is one thing, having the time and inclination to argue the toss about it with the Council is another.

But don't get hung up on all this again, my point was to illustrate Newbury Town Council's attitude to criticism and the utter pointlessness of virtually any discussion on their terms.

[user23]

Last time one did you got aggressive and completely off topic, started to question him about his personal tax claims.

[Simon Kirby]

Last time one did you got aggressive and completely off topic, started to question him about his personal tax claims.

If you want to troll that up why not post in that thread, and I'll be happy explain the need for Newbury Town Councillors to declare the profit they make from their travel costs, and why it is wrong that they make a profit in the first place, and if any Newbury Town Council councillors want to contribute to that debate they can and we'll see if they can keep their toys in their pram this time.

But this thread is discussing the Town Council's contempt for supposed consumer feedback about the quality of the market's produce, though in reality it seems more likely they're peaked at criticism of their loss-making 70's-era management of the market, and their sniping from the comfort of the TCP is exposing something of a pattern which gives insight into the murky goings-on inside the NTC bunker.

[Cognosco]

Last time one did you got aggressive and completely off topic, started to question him about his personal tax claims.

Surely that is part of the councillors remit? The taxpayers should have the right to question on any topic they like it is the councillors duty to answer? Or have I got it completely wrong user? I suppose the councillor should be given notice of any questions so that an army of PR staff are able to put a few days of research into any answer they tell the councillor to spout? From other posts on this forum I am beginning to get the idea that coucillors are as much use as chocolate fireguards and we need a fresh look at are they worth the expenditure?

[user23]

If you want to troll that up why not post in that thread, and I'll be happy explain the need for Newbury Town Councillors to declare the profit they make from their travel costs, and why it is wrong that they make a profit in the first place, and if any Newbury Town Council councillors want to contribute to that debate they can and we'll see if they can keep their toys in their pram this time.

But this thread is discussing the Town Council's contempt for supposed consumer feedback about the quality of the market's produce, though in reality it seems more likely they're peaked at criticism of their loss-making 70's-era management of the market, and their sniping from the comfort of the TCP is exposing something of a pattern which gives insight into the murky goings-on inside the NTC bunker.

It was you that didn't keep his "toys in the pram" Simon, got aggressive and started questioning the poor bloke, completely off topic, about his tax return. When he answered the questions you changed the criteria and got more aggressive.

Your bully boy attitude spoilt it for everyone else who wanted to ask on-topic queries and the personal abuse you handed out probably ensured they we'll not see any more of them on here again.

[Cognosco]

It was you that didn't keep his "toys in the pram" Simon, got aggressive and started questioning the poor bloke, completely off topic, about his tax return. When he answered the questions you changed the criteria and got more aggressive.

Your bully boy attitude spoilt it for everyone else who wanted to ask on-topic queries and the personal abuse you handed out probably ensured they we'll not see any more of them on here again.

No! not nice having councillors questioned? That is not supposed to happen is it? Well not in Newbury apparently according to User's rules anyway? Just because that is exactly what they are paid for does not enter the equation then? If councillors cannot cope with the likes of Simon on a small market town forum then they are not up to the job surely?

[Simon Kirby]

It was you that didn't keep his "toys in the pram" Simon, got aggressive and started questioning the poor bloke, completely off topic, about his tax return. When he answered the questions you changed the criteria and got more aggressive.

Your bully boy attitude spoilt it for everyone else who wanted to ask on-topic queries and the personal abuse you handed out probably ensured they we'll not see any more of them on here again.

Vintage troll User. You paid overtime on a Sunday? Now be a good chap and let the nice people talk about the subject of the thread. Trip trap.

[user23]

No! not nice having councillors questioned? That is not supposed to happen is it? Well not in Newbury apparently according to User's rules anyway? Just because that is exactly what they are paid for does not enter the equation then? If councillors cannot cope with the likes of Simon on a small market town forum then they are not up to the job surely?

You think if councillors can't cope with off topic bullying as we witnessed then they're not up to the job?

Vintage troll User. You paid overtime on a Sunday? Now be a good chap and let the nice people talk about the subject of the thread. Trip trap.

Classic avoidance of the question. Simon, you yourself are one of the reasons we don't get any councillors posting here, so for you to then moan that we don't get any on here is a tad hypocritical.

You bang on about accountability, yet you seem unwilling to be accountable for your actions yourself. If this is mirrored off of this forum then it's no wonder you're not taken seriously.

[Simon Kirby]

Please do not feed the troll.

[user23]

Please do not feed the troll.

Mr accountability suddenly becomes unaccountable for his own actions.

Too close to the truth for you?

[Iommi]

Cllr Allen bottled it. As have all the other councillors that avoid here.

[Cognosco]

You think if councillors can't cope with off topic bullying as we witnessed then they're not up to the job?Classic avoidance of the question. Simon, you yourself are one of the reasons we don't get any councillors posting here, so for you to then moan that we don't get any on here is a tad hypocritical.

You bang on about accountability, yet you seem unwilling to be accountable for your actions yourself. If this is mirrored off of this forum then it's no wonder you're not taken seriously.

Bullying? Off topic? If a councillor is unable to take a small bit of critical banter then yes he is not up to the job.
A councillor should be able to answer any question the he is given. If he does not know the answer straight away then say so and declare that he will find out for you? Surely it is not now mandatory to say "pretty please" after asking a question so as not to upset the councillor?

Just look at how you try to bully and browbeat posters if they ask questions that you do not like asked of WBC?
This is part of everyday life the councillor should get over it bless him!? Stay calm give succinct and clear answers and move on unless of course the answer given throws up more questions? If you cant take the heat get out of the kitchen?

Forum members will soon get to know when someone is just trying to cause trouble for troubles sake wont they User? But clear sensible questions left unanswered leaves a bad taste in the mouth so to speak and incites even more questions from even more posters and then tends to snowball.
The more questions answered by councillors is surely therefore to their advantage?
The more questions left unanswered is not and tend not to go away?

Bit like CCTV and Allotments really then?

[Simon Kirby]

I'll start a ne thread to address User's point. In the mean time can we get back on thread because we seem to have been distracted from discussing the Town Council's attitude to criticism - I wonder how that happened.

[NWNREADER]

I'll start a ne thread to address User's point. In the mean time can we get back on thread because we seem to have been distracted from discussing the Town Council's attitude to criticism - I wonder how that happened.

'The Town Council' has no attitude to criticism, but the people that form it might. Generalising what all must think is unhelpful as it gets up the nose of those who might otherwise agree with you. It also creates a corraling mentality - they herd together in the fear they will be next on the list. 'Say nothing to Kirby; even if you try to help he'll cut your legs off'.

As I remember Cllr Allen came on to talk about the allotment issue. When he was not saying what Simon wanted to hear he was asked about his expenses and tax. Now those are valid questions to ask in an appropriate way, but shooting the messenger does rather close communication links down. We were all deprived of the possibility to hear the other side of the allotment story, after all.