8 May (Part 2) - The door slams shut
The various tricks Bexley council uses to shield itself from questions have
been listed before. In the past they have lost questions, delayed them so they miss
the cut-off time, reject them because they don’t like them,
curtail the time
given for answers and
plant fake questions from their Tory party friends. Because
some questioners overcame the obstacles they now propose to publish questioners’
address details on the web under the blatantly irrelevant pretext that it is the
only way to ensure the questioner is a Bexley resident, and ban any questioner
the mayor doesn’t like from ever asking questions. The News Shopper has twice
suggested I will be on that list but I had always assumed that the ban would
apply to those who had had warning letters from the mayor for "parsimonious
appreciation" and the like. I thought we might soon find out at the forthcoming
council meeting but I underestimated the council’s deviousness.
The extra restrictions placed on questions were
approved by the Constitutional
Review Panel on 27th April but they have yet to go before the full council
for rubber-stamping on 18th May. There is the remotest possibility that the
changes won’t be approved but the original proposals have always included
implementing them immediately. i.e. on the 18th. So now we don’t know under which
set of rules questions can be submitted for the 18th so the council has taken
the easy way out. Refuse all questions for the next council meeting. “Thank you
for your questions. However, the agenda for the Annual Meeting of the Council
does not include an item on Questions. The next opportunity for questions to be
put would be at the meeting in July.”
Thanks to
Mr. Peaple,
Bexley council is currently splurged across the net; blog of the week at
Big Brother Watch,
and because of that, widely repeated with the nice descriptive phrase “Bexley Council,
well known for their controversial methods”. We can all see how that reputation was
earned and it feels good to have played a small part in getting that message widely known.
Among the questions that Bexley council has side-stepped with its shameful manoeuvring are these…
What new evidence has surfaced to suggest that members of the public need to be
assured that questions submitted to the full council meeting are genuine by
including the name and address of the person submitting the question?
Does Bexley Council not assure themselves that the questions are genuine and
that the person submitting the question is on the electoral register before it
prints the question in the agenda?
Is Bexley Council insured against any claim by a member of the public for damage
to their person or property as a result of having their address published?
What are the implications to the council with regard to the Data Protection Act?
Will it be a breach of an individuals right to freedom of speech under the Human
Rights Act if a member of the public wishes to submit a question but does not
want their address published, as a result of which the council refuse to print the question?
Is the threat to publish an individual’s address no more than an attempt to
intimidate members of the public not to submit questions to the full council meeting?