Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 28 2014, 01:58 PM

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/localauditandaccountability.html is currently going through the final ping-pong stage which looks likely to create a right to film council meetings. At present if you want to film or take a photo at a council meeting there is a significant risk that an uppity clerk could call the police and have you arrested. You'd not be doing anything illegal and the police don't actually have any power of arrest if all you're doing is quietly filming or snapping the proceedings, http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/06/public-council-police-thompson that people have been carted off to the cells in handcuffs for just that, only to be released without charge. Utterly appalling in what is supposed to be a free society.

You already have a right under the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 to attend meetings of the full parish council and its committees, though that right doesn't extend to sub-committees, but it's helpful here to understand what a committee and sub-committee is - a committee is a meeting which has its power to make decisions delegated directly by the council, and a sub-committee is a meeting which has its power to make decisions delegated by a committee.

So for our own town council its committees are the Policy & Resources Committee; Community Services Committee, Civic Pride, Arts & Leisure Committee, and the Planning & Highways Committee, but also the confisingly-named Urgency Sub-Committee which is technically a committee. You don't currently have a right to attend a Grants Sub-Committee or a Staff Sub-Committee.

So you shouldn't actually need a right to take a photo or video of a councillor or officer in a council meeting because it's not disruptive and the only power the council has is to evict you from the meeting if you're being disruptive, but in practice councillors and officers can be very unhappy indeed about their business being exposed to public scrutiny and criticism - but that's the cornerstone of a free society and it's very important to assert that right.

I think you might be surprised at some of the harridan harpies and knuckle-dragging halfwits that people local government. Voting for someone on the strength of their party affiliation alone does not create good local government and exposing the arrogance, vanity, self-serving, and good old-fashioned ignorance, fear and prejudice that exists in local councils should do wonders for accountability.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 28 2014, 02:12 PM

And having been unkind to UKIP the other day, http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/battle-to-film-huntingdonshire-district-council.html trying to film a meeting of the Huntingdonshire District Council. The bejeweled chairwoman Barbara Boddington is like something from a Carry On film, and the Head of Legal, Head of Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer Colin Meadowcroft gives a superb immitation of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz with his protestation that the chap simply hasn't followed the required procedure to film, with the forms presumably available in a disused council lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”.

Anyhoo, UKIP Cllr Peter Reeve is the only one of the lot of them who appears to have any sense and he comes over extremely well, which I have to admit reflects very well on UKIP too. That's the power of actually seeing the process in action.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jan 28 2014, 03:57 PM

Did he write poetry as well then? I mean. I've heard that some of their metaphysical imagery is particularly effective.

Posted by: Strafin Jan 28 2014, 07:36 PM

I really enjoyed reading that!

Posted by: On the edge Jan 28 2014, 10:23 PM

Loved the film, you can see how the 'chain of office' makes all the difference - well worth the expense....not.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 29 2014, 04:28 PM

Well the Carry On films proved popular so perhaps filming NTC meetings may cheer precept payers up by giving them a good laugh or perhaps sending them to a good sleep?

But seriously I can see why Councillors don't want to be filmed as it may give a far wider audience the knowledge of what their Councillors do is a complete waste of precept payers money!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 29 2014, 04:46 PM

Quite so. In the Huntingdonshire example it was incredibly insightful to see how pompous and officious out elected officials can be for absolutely no good reason whatsoever - it's wasn't as though there was anything that shouldn't have been filmed, the chap only had the same access as any other citizen might have exercised on the night, the only thing the council could have been embarrassed about was their arrogance, and that really did come over.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 29 2014, 04:52 PM

Yes, the chain of office really lent the occasion some dignity didn't it. Well worth £1,000 of Greenham Parish Council money for them to get one of those. Like they said, it must have been really difficult for all of those visiting dignitaries to take them seriously without a chain of office.

Posted by: Strafin Jan 29 2014, 06:51 PM

To be fair though, if womeone turned up at your work and wanted to film everything in case you screwed up you wouldn't like it either. I know it's not "work" exactly but that's the closest thing I could relate too.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 29 2014, 07:43 PM

It does happen in my work, and I'm happy with it.

Posted by: Lolly Jan 29 2014, 08:01 PM

This issue has been rumbling on for a while and you have to wonder why Councillors are so resistant.

I found Richard Taylor's submission on the bill very interesting reading.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmpublic/localaudit/memo/laa01.htm

It seems that there is one Council in his area that is open to the idea. I wonder what West Berkshire Council's stance is and whether that differs from our town/parish councils. Has anybody put it to the test?

Posted by: Lolly Jan 29 2014, 08:15 PM

Answered my own question re West Berkshire Council by doing a quick Google search:

http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/documents/b7613/Questions%20and%20Answers%2025th-Jul-2013%2017.00%20Executive.pdf?T=9

The question is raised by Jeff Brookes and answered by Gordon Lundie. Whether the matter has been 'looked in to' as promised remains to be seen. I guess the only way to find out would be to turn up & try to film & see what happens. Is anybody brave enough? (I'm not!)

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 29 2014, 09:12 PM

It will take a camera man with a steady hand and a good tripod otherwise you will not see much as the camera will be jumping all over the chamber with his laughter!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 29 2014, 09:49 PM

Gordon Lundie's answer was a good one I feel. - I don't know why Jeff Brooks was quite so po-faced - might have been good to see that on film to catch the nuance.

Gordon Lundie was of course right that Pickles' guidance (and the thrust of the bill) is that citizen-journalists should be facilitated in photographing and filming proceedings.

I think too much is being made of the issue of public attendees being inadvertently filmed. At the end of the day it isn't really the council's concern. In any event if the bill is passed which looks very likely now then the regulations which follow should oblige councils to facilitate filming so that really rather relieves them of any worry.

However, even with a right to film, would you want to exercise that right if the council could identify you and victimise you for any critical opinion you published about them alongside your footage and photos? Do you want to risk a life-long Vexatious Complainant designation delivered in public with no hearing, no review, and no appeal. Something to post on your blog I suppose, but hardly something you'd want to invite. There are links in the referenced article to councils who have called the police and had people arrested and taken away to the cells just for filming peacefully and quietly, so even with a right to film I wouldn't feel confident that a vindictive council wouldn't still call the police to arrest you just for being a declared Vexatious Complainant.

Your rights are only as good as your ability to enforce them, and if a council just chooses to deprive you of your rights then you really have very little you can do about it. Well, you have a sliver of a chance with a district council because they're subject to the largely ineffective and establishment-apologist Local Government Ombudsman, but parish councils are entirely a law unto themselves.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 30 2014, 09:06 AM

It's happened where I work!!

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 30 2014, 09:38 PM

There is quite a difference between filming at work and filming a public meeting.
The former is usually about filming repetitive tasks as few companies would want to lose their competitive edge by filming board or management meetings. That said, there are dozens of cases where programmes on TV do just that. Clearly though and I am struggling to understand why, the Parkway people don't allow it although the emergency services seem to revel in it 'Cops on Camera' or whatever they call it...
As far as filming a council meeting, they are our elected servants and there should be no reason why the proceedings shouldn't be captured 'on film' so to speak. I agree that filming members of the public at those meetings should be avoided however. The concern that councils may have are that the recording could be doctored for youtube. Not that the pompous lady in the test film could come across any less 'spitting image'.

Are the council offices private property. If yes, they have a right, presumably in the way that the Parkway has, to prevent the use of a camera.

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 30 2014, 09:40 PM

Pressed the wrong button.

Posted by: MontyPython Jan 30 2014, 10:17 PM

Yes there should be a ban where either the public are speaking or their objections to a planning application are being revealed - unless the member of public specifically waives this right to privacy.



What like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heR8c_7Venk

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 30 2014, 10:49 PM

Not really. My take on it:

The council office is private property so you have no general right of access and certainly no general right to film on council property, but you do have a statutory right to attend council and committee meeting (unless the meeting resolves that it would be prejudicial to the public interest to admit the public), and you have the same right to attend whether the meeting is on council property or any other private property, and no one can prevent you attending or have you removed from those meetings other than if you are causing a nuisance.

Actually the words are:


So maybe a council could successfully argue that filming in breach of their standing orders is "other misbehaviour".

So it would come down to whether your filming was a a nuisance, and if you're sitting there quiet as a mouse just pointing a camera at the proceedings it's very difficult to say that's a nuisance. Some councils have argued that their standing orders prohibit filming, but that doesn't actually give them the right to do anything about it.

Your right to attend meetings of public bodies comes from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/67/contents and applies to meetings of the full body, and also to its committees, but not to sub-committees or any other kind of meeting like working groups and staff meetings.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 30 2014, 10:51 PM

You have no general right to privacy. The meeting is open to the public, for good reason, and so anyone can step in off the street and see you there, and can read in the minutes what you said, so I can't see what the objection can be to being caught on film.

Posted by: MontyPython Jan 30 2014, 11:07 PM

I was thinking of someone wishing to object to their neighbours house extension, without the neighbour knowing - but I suppose as applicant they will be there anyway. I would object to them being ridiculed if they weren't used to public speaking when they were only trying to get their opinion heard.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 31 2014, 11:04 AM

Are you an actor?

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Jan 31 2014, 11:54 AM

Dear Forum Readers,

I can assure you that the Leader of Newbury Town Council, Cllr Julian Swift-Hook and myself would love to video stream all public meetings at the Council. We have a new sound system which can easily cope with this and the matter is being looked into.

Should any of you wish to come along and video a meeting then feel free. Personally I totally welcome the public seeing and hearing what is happening for I know that it will actually mean that the meetings are swifter as well.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera

Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: motormad Jan 31 2014, 12:10 PM

When and where?

Posted by: Jay Sands Jan 31 2014, 12:30 PM

The right to film council meetings has just been passed into law: "Just yesterday, the Local Audit and Accountability Act was passed into law. It gives citizens the right to blog, tweet and make recordings at local council meetings. The Government only made this move after a report by Andrew Allison (Tax Payers Alliance) exposed his local authority, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, as the most secretive in his region. Until now, residents were not allowed to record, Tweet or otherwise comment on the meeting via the internet. Not any more: from now on, all citizen journalists and bloggers have the law on their side. "

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 31 2014, 07:07 PM

I see the act received royal assent yesterday, but it's my understanding of http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0129/cbill_2013-20140129_en_4.htm#pt7-pb1-l1g40 that it does no more than enables secondary legislation, so a separate statutory instrument is still required to create the right to film.

But again, if the council you filmed chooses to victimize you for posting your footage because of some criticism or other that you make of the council then you'd be pretty daft to exercise your rights if the council had some control over something you cared about.

Posted by: Jay Sands Feb 1 2014, 09:53 AM

In my opinion all council meetings should be filmed and recorded as a matter of course and there should be no secret meetings of any kind, everything should be transparent.

I also don't think members of one council should also be on another, e.g. Newbury TC and West Berks Council, it seems to me there could be a conflict of interests there that might prejudice any vote/opinion. There should also be a limit on the number of times a councillor can stand for re-election.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 1 2014, 10:03 AM

Sometimes!!

Posted by: blackdog Feb 1 2014, 10:53 AM

I'm not so concerned about membership of both parish and district councils - it seems logical enough to represent constituents at both levels. What worries me more is membership of two or more councils at the same level. For instance the Leader of NTC is also a member of Greenham Parish Council. There are obvious conflicts of interest - notably in planning.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 1 2014, 01:06 PM

Spot on!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2014, 08:13 PM

I'm not convinced about the ideas for limiting councillors to sitting on just one council or the number of times elected as I think that's really a question for people to decide for themselves at the ballot box. I think the issue here is that almost no one takes any interest in what their councillors are doing in their name once the election has gone.

I couldn't agree more about making decisions in public, but I can't see any practical way of enforcing open government if councillors don't choose openness. What our local government needs is for people to demand engagement, but I don't see that happening. To my knowledge I'm the only person in Newbury to press the council on their costs, and I got a public excoriation and a life-time designation as a Vexatious Complainant for the question with no hearing, no appeal, and no right of review. It seems utterly inane to me that the council do not publish the costs of the services they provide, because it's very difficult to engage with the budget-setting process if you don't have the figure in front of you, but if people aren't holding their council to account it won't change.

It's a tragedy, but by and large people engaging with the council always want something from it, and anyone who knows how the council works will understand that you have to pander to the council's insecurity and submit to them completely if you ever what to get what it is you want. We get the democracy we deserve.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 1 2014, 08:45 PM

Or as in Newbury Democracy in name only- it's Democracy Jim but not as we know it!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2014, 08:52 PM

But there isn't a line of disgruntled citizens queuing out the door of the town hall to hold their town council to account.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 1 2014, 08:56 PM

I've only just see your signature Simon, lol!

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 1 2014, 09:22 PM

Well of course it doesn't help when they see how you have been treated?
Ask a question more than once, even if the answer they first supplied was nonsensical and the answer not relevant to the question, and you are declared vexatious!
I assume it is the mentality of people that as long as the council leave them alone then all is well.

I must admit until I had reason to question the council I had no idea what others were complaining about?
It would seem as if they have a language all of their own and any replies just do not make sense or relate to the question asked.

I too fail to understand why there is not more calling to account of the councils by ratepayers especially in these hard economic times? If the councils knew they were being audited by ordinary ratepayers they would not be so eager to increase precepts and ensure that hard earned monies were not being wasted!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2014, 10:01 PM

Posted by: On the edge Feb 1 2014, 10:55 PM

If it gives you any comfort, no you aren't the only one. I challenged an increase in the Police precept some years ago - because it was well above inflation. Also asked why the Museum had closed because it 'suddenly' didn't meet fire regulations. Both simply because the stupid excuses angered me as a charge payer. A few of us also challenged various things as local residents and got roundly chastised and criticised in the Town Hall for dating to do so.

Then, of course, we had the famous forums! After a time hardly anyone else from the public turned up; even our local press. The Deputy Head of the Council would attend saying and doing absolutely nothing. Yes, now and again a localised issue would encourage a few to come and make hot comments about things going badly wrong in their neighbourhood. Lists were made, heads nodded sagely, nothing done. The lists didn't even get updated properly. In the end, most of the time was taken up by wannabe Lord and Lady Bountifuls coming along and giving a chat about their pet projects. Whole thing a travesty.

The Police did try to set up Neighbourhood Action Groups which they hoped would morph into Residents Associations. Some hope, once the politicos got hold of that; death by feint praise.

The main political parties do NOT want any local interference thanks very much. The local party are just there to keep the punters quiet, no more, no less. Like if or not, the UK is still a Monarchy so we have aristocratic rule.

Once a serf always a serf.

Posted by: Jay Sands Feb 2 2014, 08:39 AM

Some years ago a friend's son was elected to his local council. He was hoping to make a difference in his community, unfortunately, he quit after a year because he discovered he was only there to nod things through on party lines from other councillors who had been there since Noah built his ark and not to have an opinion of his own. My point about limiting the number of times councillors should be allowed to stand for re-election, and in my opinion this applies to MPs too, is that it might stop longstanding politicos using the council/parliament as a sort of sinecure. I would not allow same family members to stand at the same time for election either or be voted in one after the other thereby using the council as some kind of family business.

"...a life-time designation as a Vexatious Complainant for the question with no hearing, no appeal, and no right of review", this is simply an abuse of power. We should all be allowed to question everything the council does who are spending our money.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 2 2014, 10:59 AM

On both these subjects I was wondering how Ruwan is faring so far?
I guess we will only know when we have a result on the Allotmentgate and Parkgate and Simon is declared non vexatious - or of course Ruwan makes public that he is unable to make any influence at all on the council and is proposing to resign?

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 2 2014, 11:43 AM

It certainly seems that they treat customer complaints as a job creation scheme. Make it as convoluted as possible with everything to be done by letter (giving the complainant as much work as possible) and all for very little result!

As for the language they do seem to have one of their own and little understanding of the English language as they don't know what the complaint is about!




Exactly many of the public are disenfranchised with the whole saga - and they don't complain, not because they are satisfied, but that it is easier to build a brick wall in your back garden if you wish to bang your head against it!

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 2 2014, 01:43 PM

You would need planning permission from WBC for that. Start of a long process with the associated bureaucracy.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 2 2014, 06:52 PM

It is an abuse of power, yes. I don't see anyone else doing the analysis and asking the difficult questions and the council need to apologies for the slur and make themselves accountable. Not one single councillor has stood up at the council and questioned how I've been treated. Not a one.

If you have anything that you value that the council has some control over you'd be a fool to engage with the council or exercise your right to criticism if they are able to identify you, and I certainly wouldn't risk turning up to photograph their meetings until you have a clear statutory right that you could be confident that the police would recognise.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 8 2014, 01:22 PM

Dear Simon,

There do exist Councillors that not only listen, but take note and then action concerns as you are aware, but we also live in a bureaucratic society that requires processes to be followed, and unless complaints are formerly submitted 'hands are tied'.

Not engaging with the Council in my opinion is futile in the long run, although I certainly do not dismiss your experiences or thoughts on this matter. Only through engagement will things change, and I for one am always willing to speak with and listen to any residents that have concerns, and although I can make no promises as to outcomes, but I will always raise matters both formerly and informally and attempt to broker a resolution.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: On the edge Feb 8 2014, 01:42 PM

That's great, but the fact remains 'like the Savoy Hotel, the law is open to all'. After Simons bruising experience and hearing of others, it would take a very brave man to plough through the process - even if he did have the time and inclination. Then to be permanently labeled would just seem to cap it! Justice, but not as we know it.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 8 2014, 02:18 PM

On the edge,

I sure that you accept that I cannot discuss in a public forum, matters pertaining to an individual, but I am more than happy to continue speaking with Simon and anyone else 'off line' about their specific issues.

On Monday at the Policy & Resources Committee mtg I will be seeking further support from Councillors for their involvement in the Public Engagement Working Group. I will then be putting something together to advertise this for public involvement as well, and I would welcome members of the Forum getting involved.

As to the location of these meetings I fully accept that some people may not feel totally comfortable in coming to NTC, so I will be proposing that some meetings are held elsewhere.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: On the edge Feb 8 2014, 03:10 PM

Well, I hope they actually listen.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 8 2014, 03:50 PM

Yes the famous process that allows the council to know exactly who you are and to take actions that will stop that person with whatever means at their disposal, and most of these are very underhanded to say the least.

It's funny how no one from the council can discuss an individual case in public and then goes and does exactly that by declaring the person vexatious with no means of redress. Everyone knows what Simon has had to go through and just for releasing facts and figures that the council wished to keep secret and to protect themselves. Simon would be more than happy to have all the facts brought into the public limelight, he can correct me if I am mistaken, that is exactly what he has been campaigning for!

As for engagement well for me to engage with this present council then there is no way. The only way I would engage with the town council is if this lot were to do the decent thing and resign and then perhaps there could be some sort of engagement with newly elected Councillors and then on the understanding that it was to reduce the town council to what it should realistically be in these austere times.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 8 2014, 04:07 PM

Regrettably for all who believe in justice and democracy this is a pretty good and accurate summary.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 8 2014, 04:07 PM

Regrettably for all who believe in justice and democracy this is a pretty good and accurate summary.

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 8 2014, 04:44 PM

Exactly.

Usual case of politicians being complete lowlife!

Posted by: motormad Feb 8 2014, 09:16 PM

Anyone thought they were anything but?

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 8 2014, 10:20 PM

Dear Forum Members,

This evening I have been called "lowlife" and even "scum". Reminds me of my policing days.

I will respond as I used to then and remain committed to listening and working for you all no matter what you think of me personally.

Have a good Saturday evening, and I hope some courtesy returns with better weather.

Yours

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 8 2014, 10:41 PM

Ruwan, I'm very sorry about the treatment you have received. You are the only town councillor to have given me any time and consideration, and I've made no secret of the fact that I like and respect you. You are without a doubt the least deserving of criticism of any town councillor and I have no doubt whatsoever that had you been involved in 2007 my own story would have been utterly different and I'd be happily and quietly busying myself on my wash common allotment and wouldn't have lived through several years of what has been the most unpleasantly stressful realization of the impotence of the individual in the path of a relentless and vindictive state. I am grateful for the support you have given me, but I hope you understand that I feel I have been harshly treated by the town council, and though I have made a considerable effort to find common ground with the council they have taken everything and given nothing. I am sorry if my friends' support for me is vented unfairly on you.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 8 2014, 10:47 PM

Simon,

As ever your response is appreciated. Change though can be brought about by many means, but not through avoidance even though engaging can initially be painful.

As you are aware you will always be welcome at any meeting that I am involved in, and regarding the Public Engagement Working Group, I will be proposing that some of the meetings are held 'off site'.

Yours with respect,

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: motormad Feb 8 2014, 10:55 PM

I don't think anyone specifically called you a lowlife or scum (I must have missed scum somewhere???)
More rather politicians in general. From the outside (us) looking in to political parties, especially with the temperature of us people on the local constitution, can you really expect anything but?

It's nice that you bother to partake on the forum, as many councilors probably purposefully avoid it.

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 9 2014, 12:41 AM

Ruwan, I apologise if you thought I was directing my comments at you personally - this was not the case as I believe you to be an exception rather than following the rule. I also respect you for putting your head above the parapet to get "shot at" on occasion. As with others on here I am frustrated when excuses are made into why certain injustices cannot be looked at (a'la Simon) without a certain process being followed when the Councillors appear happy not to follow the same process when it suits them (hence my comments on your Lib Dem colleagues who have control on said council and many of whom would have voted on the issue).

Once again apologies if personal offense was taken. Hopefully you feel courtesy has returned, I am afraid I can do nothing about the weather!

Posted by: user23 Feb 9 2014, 08:47 AM

It's a shame that a thread on quite an interesting topic has become another "simon says" debate with abusive language.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 9 2014, 09:15 AM

MontyPython,

Apology accepted, but I still say get involved. It is easier for any Councillor to champion issues with the public standing behind them.

Yours

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 9 2014, 10:21 AM

If you wish the thread to go in a different direction, perhaps you should get involved more. If you won't get involved, 'then you are part of the problem'!

Posted by: user23 Feb 9 2014, 11:24 AM

I just did.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 9 2014, 12:01 PM

Yet you allowed it to go on for pages before piping up, but it remains to be seen if it will have the desired effect. You have mode no comment whatsoever on the OP.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 9 2014, 12:05 PM

You unfortunately do not understand just how high feelings are running at the moment?
When a complete travesty of justice has taken place and there is, seemingly no way of correcting it, then you must expect people to resort to whatever means they deem necessary? Everyone has a breaking point when enough is enough but of course you would be unable to understand that.

Posted by: user23 Feb 9 2014, 01:44 PM

Sometimes it's best just to listen, one doesn't have to interject into a debate to learn from it.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 9 2014, 01:47 PM

No only interject when it needs deflecting?

Posted by: user23 Feb 9 2014, 01:54 PM

What needs deflecting?

Filming council meetings is something that's been in the news recently due new laws being passed and in this thread you've got a Deputy Leader of a council inviting residents, not only to come along and film meetings, but it looks like use their facilities to do it, too.

This seems to have been drowned out by single issue politician Simon, trying to assert his agenda yet again.

So, back on topic. Who's going to take the Deputy Leader up on his offer?

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 9 2014, 02:57 PM

Yes who? Anybody who asks a pertinent question and gets the usual non answer and repeats the question is then open to the wrath and tyranny of this pointless town council.
I repeat, but get no answer as usual, until the fundamental problems that this council has created regarding declaring a person vexatious for trying to pin them down for answers is solved then no one is going to put themselves at risk pointlessly by attending council meetings.
Council meetings are only held to enable them to officially nod through what has already been decided secretly anyway?

Solve the problem of the elephant in the room regarding Simon first and then maybe, just maybe, some will be willing to engage? It is no good trying to emulate the main Wetminster parties by blaming the last lot. Get on and sort out what problems you have inherited instead of pretending they don't exist!

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 9 2014, 03:03 PM

I am sure you haven't directly, personally been called such because that would be against forum rules wouldn't it, and we do not tolerate that do we?
I am sure that if this was the case then the Administrators would have interjected!

Posted by: Strafin Feb 9 2014, 04:25 PM

I forgot you had that going for you as well.

Posted by: user23 Feb 9 2014, 04:58 PM

I'm afraid the councillor has called your bluff on this wrath and tyranny nonsense, inviting the public in not just to film but it looks like to use council equipment too.

The only person in this thread who doesn't want people getting involved with local democracy is Simon.

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 9 2014, 05:16 PM

Well done User. Yes you can come to the council meetings and even use their equipment to film a meeting where you won't get one of your questions answered.

According to Local government officials that is democracy in action!

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 9 2014, 05:45 PM

Dear Forum Members,

Why not just come along to the odd (and they certainly are) meeting or two, get involved in any Working Groups that are established and become involved.

As stated before there is not only support for the public recording such meetings, but the Leader of the Council, Cllr Julian Swift-Hook is positively enthusiastic about the benefits of steaming meetings.

I personally welcome this process as it will hopefully reduce the all too common 'verbose' responses to a public audience of '0' that happens far too frequently. If Officers and Members were aware that everything they said and did in the Chamber was subject of public scrutiny then I suspect that I would get home a lot earlier than I currently do.

As for using our equipment, not sure I said this as NTC's equipment will be used transmitting to the world and beyond. Gosh my relatives in distant lands could watch and listen to Newbury Town Council at work, but I am not so sure that they will find the experience riveting, but it will increase the publics opportunity to scrutinise their council and decide whether their Councillors actually represent the interests of their Wards appropriately or as some in the Forum posit merely act as mouth pieces for their 'Masters at the District Council, or Party HQ.

Seriously though, if this increases openness and transparency it has to be good?

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 9 2014, 06:22 PM

Ruwan

A very many people have strong opinions but when it comes to standing up at public meetings and asking questions this for them is a game stopper. You mention council equipment and new media? You yourself are debating on a local forum just what is wrong with the council entering into this debate and answering the questions posted exactly the same as you are participating in now? After all it is only just another medium for engaging with the public is it not? Why should the public have to travel to the town hall after all you have probably reached more of the public on this forum than you ever will via other means that the council uses at the moment, I don't mind being corrected if this is incorrect, so why not suggest the other Councillors get together and request forum members post any questions they have and get them to debate them on this forum? I fail to see the difference in me traveling to the town hall or sitting at my computer and submitting the questions. At least I won't waste a lot of my time at the town hall and being informed that they are unable to enter into discussions on that subject which has occurred more times than I care to remember.
I therefore challenged the council to move with the times and engage with the public via the modern method of the digital aid instead of in a stuffy town hall.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 9 2014, 07:19 PM

I fully support the sentiments, but we live in a society that rightly requires evidence and someone to take responsibility for their words and deeds, and although I am willing to participate in the Forum, the questions posed can only inform my actions, not dictate them for they are generally made by 'faceless' people who do not corroborate what they have said with evidence.

As with any official body, for the Council to take action it requires the applicant to at least send in a formal letter of concern/complaint. This may appear bureaucratic but to someone such as myself who has been involved in the criminal justice system for all of my adult life, it seems eminently sensible.

As for travelling to the Town Hall, we are talking about the residents of Newbury are we not? Newbury is not exactly huge, and the Town Hall is in the centre. Now if you had said that it was disproportionately expensive to park ones car in order to get to the Town Hall, I would agree as I seem to pay a vast amount weekly merely to attend or undertake Council business.

Of course an alternative method would be for Public and Forum members to make official complaints directly to Ward Councillors, but even then, for the complaint to be processed it would have to come from a named person, unless of course it was of a criminal nature, then really people should go straight to the police.

You have though posed a rather good question about posing questions in the post-Streaming period about whether someone need to be physically present in the Chamber to ask a supplementary question to one presented either orally or by way of a letter/email? I will seek further guidance on this one.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 9 2014, 08:07 PM

Ruwan

For some people to get to the town hall may be very much harder than you may imagine.
Disabled, wheelchair, medical equipment, to move out of the house can be a major logistical planning problem for some. Therefore parking problems sinks into insignificance to some.
I repeat there is the problem of being victimised by the existing council and I sincerely believe that is why not very many attend the town hall meetings.

I repeat I really appreciate that you are participating but as in the past it does not in fact produce any results that moves anything forward. I fail to see the difference in talking face to face in a workshop or whatever or than as we are doing at present on this forum. The only noticeable difference is that I have debated longer with you but the outcome would seem to be the same. We are in the same positions as when we started.
So my experience with the town council is the same as it always has been a wasted time I'm afraid.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 9 2014, 08:20 PM

That's not so. In the case of the decision to waive the £2.5k Victoria Park booking fee for the Christmas Market the Council was able to review its previous decision without a formal complaint from anyone.

In general the legal position is that a council can put anything at all it wants on the agenda as long as it has the competency to decide the issue. There is nothing in statute, common law, nor in your standing order that requires you to have a formal complaint.

A complainant has a right under your complaints process to have her complaint heard by the council, though in practice you make it very difficult for the public to exercise that right - I was only given a hearing in my eviction dispute seven months after you served me with the forfeiture - the first opportunity I was given to actually make my case, and of course once the council has decided something it never changes it mind.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 9 2014, 08:21 PM

Cognosco,

I am sorry to hear this, but as previously stated, without at least some official and direct engagement with those aggrieved my hands are frustratingly tied.

I hope that you will reconsider speaking with me directly. If you are unable to travel then I am more than willing to come to you.

What more can I offer?

Yours

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 9 2014, 08:30 PM

Therein lies your problem

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 10 2014, 11:17 AM

Simon, have you tried to send a complaint to the council, perhaps care of Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera?

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 10 2014, 04:11 PM

Unless I am completely wrong the situation as I understand is:

Simon has to make an official complaint but is unable to make an official complaint because he has been declared vexatious.
If this is indeed the situation then I think it would explain to any doubters, if there are any, just how farcical the council has become.

Perhaps someone from the council will correct this if they think this is wrong and explain who needs to make the complaint and how regarding Allotmentgate?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 10 2014, 07:17 PM

I think I need to do that, but I hope they remember that it was their idea.

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 10 2014, 07:20 PM

I think the existing members are trying to tie you with the usual "Red Tape".

Where was the original "formal letter" that got an agenda item to label Simon vexatious?

It's the usual council "lets have a rule to use if it suits us".

Everything points to them being a bunch of total incompetents desperately trying to be not found out!

Posted by: Lolly Feb 10 2014, 08:17 PM

[quote name='MontyPython' date='Feb 10 2014, 07:20 PM' post='91551']
I think the existing members are trying to tie you with the usual "Red Tape".

I have to agree with this. As a Councillor and Deputy Leader surely you can put forward an Agenda Item/motion to review the Council's vexatious complainant policy and any incidences when it has been applied. It seems to be far too easy for Councils and other bodies to deflect criticism and even provision of information by classifying somebody as vexatious. This problem is not peculiar to Newbury Town Council - it seems to be occurring around the country and seems completely at odds with the government's policies of transparency and accountability.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 10 2014, 09:38 PM

And keep it simple, to the point, and courteous.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 10 2014, 09:43 PM

In seriousness, is there not the wherewithal for the council film it themselves somehow?

Personally, I think user23 made a reasonable point ealier, but for people to be willing to film it, from some limited experience of it, it is a tedious job when you are not that interested in the subject matter.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 11 2014, 04:46 PM

There could even be some profit to be made if they market it as an aid for insomniacs.

All the meetings are discussed and any decisions are made before the public meeting anyhow and it is decided who will say what so they may just as well issue the minutes without the expense of holding the public meetings!

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 11 2014, 06:21 PM

They need to get the acoustics and the public area in the WBC chamber sorted before they bother about filming. I have been to the odd one or two meetings. The public are sat at the side and from there cannot see who is saying what, especially those members with their backs to the public. A lot of the councillors seem to have some sort of speech impediment which prevents them talking above a whisper. The video screens and the things displayed on them are often something of a mystery and of course, the one visible to the public is on the opposite wall.

A complete waste of time attending as it is almost impossible to make out what's going on or who is speaking as you can't see their name cards and trying to work out if it is a councillor or a council officer speaking.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 11 2014, 06:32 PM

So early indications are that this is 'white elephant' of an idea? I think people might expect something akin to PMQs, and it is certainly not like that.

For it it be of any use, you would need a number of mics, perhaps several cameras, and a film director! It then starts to look like a tedious assignment.

Perhaps quoted minutes would be better.


What would have been a good watch was the meeting at Luker in the early naughties, chaired by Julian Swift-Hook, when they rubber stamped Sainsbury's depot at Greenham; there was some great moments there.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 11 2014, 06:39 PM

Julian Swift-Hook.......Great Moments? Are we talking about the NTC Leader?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 11 2014, 06:48 PM

Yes, except most of the best moments came from the floor!

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 11 2014, 07:17 PM

I always manage to miss all the best moments it would seem?
Still not sure I believe there could be excitement at a Council meeting though?

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 11 2014, 08:29 PM

Oh good We like "White Elephants" like this and the Market Square.

With WBC and NTC we shall soon be able to open a zoo or circus!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 11 2014, 09:41 PM

I think the right to film councillors in council meetings is an important liberty. I don't see whole council meetings making good TV, but I see the value in being able to capture the ignorant, arrogant, inane, and insane comments of our elected councillors, and then being able to post those comments on-line for the world to see.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 11 2014, 10:28 PM

Of those that turn up. Any way, most people vote for the party they represent, not the strength of conviction or integrity.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 12 2014, 08:57 AM

Dear Forum Members,

At the most recent meeting of the Policy and Resource Committee that discussed the budget setting for 2014/15 there were only three people in the public area, and two of these were Councillors.

I believe that audio and video streaming of all public meetings is essential so I am keen that the newly formed Public Engagement Working Group looks into this asap. As previously stated I will be advertising for public involvement in this working group very soon and it would be heat to have members of the Forum involved.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 12 2014, 10:04 AM

That could change if people actually saw their councillors in action.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 13 2014, 06:38 PM

Simon has there been any movement on this yet?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 13 2014, 07:37 PM

I'm keeping that on the Q.T. I'll probably mosey off for a few months in the hope, yet again, of resolving this thing.

Posted by: motormad Feb 14 2014, 12:55 AM

All of these talks of "come to our meetings" yet for someone who is interested but perhaps doesn't have time to read every post in full detail, I'm non the wiser as to when these meetings are taking place, what they are, whether it's a "Q&A" type thing... apart from I think they're in the Council Building near Natwest in the Marketplace??

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 14 2014, 01:20 PM

motormad

Meetings are advertised on the http://www.newbury.gov.uk/meetings.php website.

You and other Forum members as well as the public are always welcome at public meetings.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: blackdog Feb 14 2014, 01:31 PM

Working group meetings are not advertised on the website - any reason why not? Especially as these are where Joe Public can have the most involvement.

Or am I just incompetent at finding them?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 14 2014, 01:53 PM

You have no right of access to working groups or other meetings like the allotment stewards meetings, and in general you're not welcome. The council strictly control their public engagement and it has to be entirely on the council's terms with the council tightly controlling discussion and of course controlling the minutes so whatever happens the meeting appears to have said whatever the council wants it to have said.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 14 2014, 07:21 PM

Simon,

Come on give me a break. Am I likely to block members of the public to any meetings that I hold?

As for I will chase this up. I know of no reason why Working Groups could not be advertised this way, so I will ask and come back to you all.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 14 2014, 08:34 PM

This isn't about you. There are difficult problems at the town council that need to be addressed - it needs that warts-and-all review that you talked about, like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in SA. That's maybe what your public engagement working group could recommend, but the catch 22 is that the only people who will engage with such a group are either already emancipated and enfranchised, or else they're paid-up self-serving establishment apologists, and either way no one will want to challenge the council.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 14 2014, 09:07 PM

Just coming back on the stewards meeting - allotmenteers are not allowed to attend. You'd think they'd be allowed really, as it is their allotments that are being discussed, and you'd think they'd be welcome to come and put questions and suggestions to the meeting and express their hopes and aspirations, even if just through their elected associations, but actually no, the stewards are the only contact between the allotmenteers and the council. That's pretty odd of course when the council, few of whom know anything about allotmenteering, make changes like banning unaccompanied children, and of course the rabidly contentious enforcement of the "locking the gate" rule, all without ever asking their service users what they'd actually like from their service. It makes the role of steward a particularly influential one, and a generous perk is that stewards also get their plots free, but it does mean that there's nothing in it for the steward to bring any criticism to the council, and without allotmenteers themselves attending there simply isn't any way for the allotmenteers to engage with their service provider. Yes, there have been a couple of tenant's meetings, but miserable screwed-down affairs they are. I remember the first one I went to, must have been around '99 - I asked about being allowed to do some hedge laying, and I remember very well the imperious comment from some old fart of a councillor (I can't remember which exactly, as there were quite a few like that) about not letting any old tom, **** or harry loose on the hedge. I was as deferential as the next man in those days, but that insulting experience in the imposing and frankly intimidating town hall left a lasting experience on me, and I have to say every single encounter with the council has been as bad or worse. I don't know if it's just Newbury, but your town council really is the most arrogant, dismissive, self-serving, defensive, ineffectual, inept, discourteous, vindictive, dysfunctional organisation one could ever hope to encounter.

Anywhoo, I laid the hedge, and a fantastic job I did of it too, binding the stakes and everything. It cost me £50 for the root stock that I gapped up with, but I was happy to pay. A couple of years later you hacked it down - the only bit of hedge on the whole site that you touched - under some pretext of a neighbour having complained about the view. Pure vindictiveness.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 14 2014, 09:20 PM

Yes the old do I say syndrome or else. I know that very well it seems as though NTC hold the gold medal for this.
The old Dannyboy & User tactic of disagree because someone else has suggested it and not them!

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 6 2014, 02:03 PM

Have there been any discussions yet regarding seeking further guidance?

Posted by: Nothing Much Apr 7 2014, 04:52 PM

This is not really connected with NTC and machinations over Parkway.
It is not a council meeting or working group.
It is a clip from a newly launched local TV station.
The first of many, and yes Mustard Video is at the heart of it. Norfolk.

It is a story of a misjudged contract to stick an incinerator in an area of less than outstanding beauty.

The politics is an annoyance,but I just have to pay my tax.

As a new project I thought the video might interest folk on the localism bit.
http://www.mustardtv.co.uk/browse/the-end-norfolks-incinerator-contract-scrapped/