Scroll down article for short video – he is the second questioner and also allowed to ask only two questions. Ms Hernandez’s background in PR and selling wasn’t quite enough to help her out. And as regards openness and transparency – she is mistress of avoiding answering a straight question.
This does not bode well for her, us or the Chief Constable.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/panama-papers-icij-database-public-search-1.3573622
One local well- known surname does appear …
Kleptocracy Tours:
… “aims to shed light on where the world’s rich and powerful stash their billions.
With some high-end properties in and around London running at the tens of millions of dollars, the city is well-placed to launder illicit funds or park money that is being hidden from tax authorities. In fact, British officials estimate that around $173 billion in laundered money entering the country every year is whitewashed via bricks and mortar — with much of it ending up in the country’s capital.
… Why do so many of the world’s super-rich park their cash in London? Because it’s easy and it works, according to Borisovich.
“This is a place where a company can come, buy a luxurious piece of property, and just put down the name of its director without telling us who is behind it,” he said.
… Why do so many of the world’s super-rich park their cash in London? Because it’s easy and it works, according to Borisovich.
“This is a place where a company can come, buy a luxurious piece of property, and just put down the name of its director without telling us who is behind it,” he said.
“Everything else helps in London as well … I mean this is the best ownership legislation, robust, tested, it’s a cultural center, education center. But first and foremost is the ease with which dirty money can come here and anonymously buy anything,” he added.
The kleptocracy tour debuted in February before the revelations of the Panama Papers — a trove of leaked documents that shed light on a network of law firms and banks that offer financial secrecy and investments in low-tax regimes.
Growing interest in the tour’s outings feeds on the perception that many of the world’s richest are avoiding paying their fair due in taxes.
According to watchdog Group Transparency International, companies based in British territories overseas —former British colonies — own 36,000 homes in London.
“Were all those houses bought using illicit money? Probably not, but the rules create an environment where the corrupt can easily hide,” said Rachel Davies, the group’s head of U.K. advocacy and research.
Activists like Davies have long said that it is hard to get the government to take notice of loopholes in the U.K. ownership laws. That may get easier in the wake of the Panama Papers.
“What’s striking about the Panama Papers is the fact that it really blew the lid off the U.K. being involved in these issues,” she said. “Half of the companies involved in the Panama Papers are based in British overseas territories, almost 2,000 of the professional enablers, accountants, [real] estate agents, that were working with the Panama firm were based in the U.K.”
“The U.K., unfortunately, is complicit in the laundering of corrupt funds,” she added.
Unfortunately, it isn’t only London – launderers are switching their interest to other prime sites in the UK – including Devon.
Hint, hint East Devonians!
“A VOTE for a change in the way West Dorset District Council is run has been hailed as a victory for “the will of the people”.
A referendum was triggered after the Public First campaign group gathered more than 6,000 signatures calling for a change from the council’s cabinet style system of governance to a committee based system.
More than 25,000 people cast their votes at the ballot box last week with 64 per cent of them backing the change of system.
A total of 16,534 voters were in favour of the committee system with 8,811 supporting the cabinet approach.
… Mr Grantham said the vote had succeeded in “sweeping away the failed cabinet system”, adding: “The council has to serve the public’s needs and make the best use of public funds.
“We trust that West Dorset District Council has finally heard the will of the people and will truly engage with us in greater democracy.”
The council’s leader Anthony Alford said: “Throughout this process one of the things I have been keen to ensure is that we do things to observe the law correctly.
“I’m very glad to say I have the utmost confidence we have proceeded with this referendum on the basis that confirms with the law and procedures and have gone through the referendum process very clearly and well.”
Cllr Alford said that the council had already agreed a structure for the new committee based system and it is expected to be implemented in May next year.
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/14479865._A_VICTORY_FOR_PEOPLE_POWER___West_Dorset_votes_for_change_in_council_system/
“Constitution-minded critics say that each year 12,000 pages of legislative detail are now introduced in ways that avoid scrutiny by either chamber of parliament.”
… and possibly about the same amount at East Devon District Council!
Why?
1. At least you will get a chance to vote for the person you dislike least and an opportunity to try to stop the one you dislike most.
2. SOMEONE will get the job whether you agree with it or not, so you want to try to make sure that person is fit for it.
3. One candidate wants to abolish the job while drawing a salary for it (UKIP).
4. One may be in the untenable position of being investigated by the police officer she can fire (Conservative).
5. If you believe the job should be non-political your vote could ensure that happens. That rules out the Labour and Lib Dem candidates.
7. This leaves only two candidates who are independent.
8. Only one (Robert Spencer) has the best qualification for the job.
9. All votes will matter in this contest, one vote may win it.
10. Because having a vote is a precious thing that must be preserved – people fought and died so that we could have it.
OWL IS VOTING FOR BOB SPENCER! INDEPENDENT
Owl really should not have beaten them to it!
ITV covering the final three of six candidates for Police and Crime Commissioner – including Conservative Alison Hernandez.
Not a murmur about the fact that she is one of the people being investigated for alleged general election fraud connected to the Tory “Battle Bus” expenses. Or that if she won she would be able to fire the Chief Constable who would be investigating it!
YYYAAAHHH – BBC Spotlight covered it!
Fascinating.
?…. ? …..
Election time Communication purdah is NOT an excuse – it excludes matters of important public interest.
Remember those business tax cuts that George Osborne offered to the (few) owners of regional press titles (see post a few days ago)?
Not one regional newspaper has covered the Channel 4 news story that Conservative PCC candidate, Alison Hernandez, is embroiled in a police investigation about election expenses and, if elected, could be in a position to sack the person who would be in charge of it.
One of them has, however, covered a story about the UKIP candidate who, if elected, says he would campaign to get rid of the job – whilst collecting a big salary for “doing” it.
It remains to be seen today if the regional TV stations do the same thing.
Hhhmmm.
“There are a number of constitutional issues arising from the involvement of the LEP in development projects,. It appears that some of our constitutional rights could be eroded by the process. The LEP leadership and directors are leading council figures. Others are business leaders who by definition have large commercial interests to serve.
Planning decisions may be significantly influenced by unelected representatives in a non transparent manner. [Some of these unelected representatives are local council leaders]. Elected representatives will then feel pressurized to assist these through highway and other council departments.
Currently the involvement or assistance [or subsidy] of the LEP is not required to be stated on planning application. This appears to oppose our planning safeguards enshrined in planning laws. [In effect, the LEP is a co-developer].
Therefore we would ask that the following constitutional safeguards are put in place immediately and well before any “devolution” moves forward. A statement should also be issued by district councils clearly showing which planning applications were [are] supported by the LEP’s since their inception in 2011.
Clear information must be included in any planning application assisted by the LEP which shows what assistance and funding has been given by LEP and their partners on all planning application. This is simple openness and transparency that we all expect.”
Source: South Devon Watch [Facebook]
As an example, local LEPs smoothed the way for a re-opened Cornish tungsten mine but they did not have to declare this at the planning stage.
“The old order, while creaking at the seams, is still powerful. Winning a seat in Parliament or any public office without the backing of one of the big political parties is hard. It is a long time since the House of Commons had more than the odd independent sitting on the green benches. Most independent MPs have fallen out with existing parties, like Sylvia Hermon, who was in the Ulster Unionists, or Dick Taverne, who resigned from the Labour Party in protest at its leftward drift and won Lincoln at a by-election in 1973, only to lose the seat the following year.
True independents are very unusual: Martin Bell, the former BBC journalist who defeated Neil Hamilton at Tatton on an anti-corruption platform in 1997, was the first since the Second World War. He stood down in 2001 but when he tried to get back in a different seat, even his reputation as a white-suited champion of probity failed to dislodge the Conservative incumbent Eric Pickles in Ongar. Dr Richard Taylor, who was returned twice as Independent MP for Wyre Forest on the issue of plans to close the local hospital, eventually lost out to the Tories in 2010.
Even if the two mainstream political parties are in decline – with membership far down from historic highs and just two-thirds of voters backing them in 2015 compared with more than 90 per cent half a century ago – they retain a firm grip on the levers of power. This is true even at the local level, where opportunities for independent candidates are supposedly more promising. In Thursday’s contests in England, Conservatives will be defending control of 52 per cent of councils and Labour 29 per cent. Independents and smaller parties run less than 2 per cent of the total.
One area of public life that should be free of party political involvement is the election of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). When these posts were first mooted by the Tories in opposition the idea was that they should be filled by non-partisan candidates; but it didn’t quite turn out that way. At the first set of elections in England and Wales four years ago,
16 Conservative PCCs were elected and 13 from Labour. There were, however, 12 Independents, including eight former police officers, a senior barrister and an ex-pilot. How many of these will be returned this time is anyone’s guess. The Conservatives and Labour are putting up candidates in every area and three independents are not seeking re-election, so there could well be fewer than before.
The concept of city mayors was another idea that many hoped would be free of party political machinations; and for a while this was the case. When Hartlepool decided to have an executive mayor in response to the Blair government’s effort to push the idea, Stuart Drummond, the mascot to the local football team, won the contest as an independent. He held the post from 2002 until 2013, when the office was abolished after local people decided in a referendum that they didn’t want a mayor after all.
Ray Mallon was independent mayor of Middlesbrough for three terms until he stood down last year and Labour took the post. George Ferguson, the independent mayor of Bristol – the only one of 10 cities that opted to switch to the system in 2012 – is fighting a fierce battle against Labour who hope to win.
In short, independents have a hard time of it. If they get in they are inevitably at a disadvantage without the organisation and funds of the big party machines. Even the most famous independent winner, Ken Livingstone – who defeated Labour’s Frank Dobson after the party refused to nominate him as its candidate for London mayor – won a second term under party colours.
There is only one independent standing in tomorrow’s London contest – the Polish aristocrat Prince Zylinski, and he is unlikely to spring a Leicester City-style surprise. This is a shame: London should have a powerful, independent voice. Indeed, Boris Johnson, albeit a Conservative, sometimes gave the impression that he was in City Hall despite party backing rather than because of it. But as he pointed out on these pages on Monday, much of his time was spent ensuring that London got a good deal from central government, so it helped being in the same party. When all power is in the hands of the central state, the chances of independents getting anything done are slim.
But is change in the air? Next week, a new organisation called Campaign for a Free Parliament is to be launched, backed by £6 million put up by a group of businessmen. Its ambition is to break the party system by sponsoring independent candidates, chosen through primary competitions, who would each receive £10,000 to fund their campaigns. Their accountability would be directly to voters rather than party HQ.
Meanwhile, David Cameron’s former adviser Steve Hilton is also trying to shake up the established order by offering a digital platform that bypasses the main parties and the media. Crowdpac has been operating in America for about 18 months and describes itself as “the new politics”. Its aim is to “make it easier for citizens to learn about politicians, run for office, and to find and support political candidates that match their priorities and beliefs. We want to help end the stranglehold of big money donors and special interests on the political system.”
Is any of this really feasible? After all, political parties exist for a purpose: they offer a home for people with a similar ideological outlook – though, as is apparent in both major parties at the moment, not an identical one. Voters know when they put a cross next to a party candidate’s name roughly what they are getting. Moreover, if the Commons were full of independents, how would a government be formed and on what basis could it claim a mandate?
Yet there is deep popular disenchantment with mainstream politics so maybe we are entering the age of the outsider – look at Donald Trump in America. My hunch is that breaking down the old political order in this country is about as likely as Leicester City winning the Premier League next year. So you never know.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/will-the-grip-of-the-two-party-system-ever-be-broken/
“While Scotland has blazed a new trail, much of England seems to have stuck to politics as usual. In fact, under the media radar, a growing number of self-styled independents are trying to kick out the big parties and take over the parts of government closest to local communities. John Harris goes to Frome, the Somerset town where this ‘flatpack democracy’ movement started; and to Winchester, where a new grassroots grouping wants to overthrow the Tory-run city council.”
Be very afraid, East Devon District Council Conservatives – be very afraid. Old party politics is out, independent collegiate democracy is in.
Only once, since I became eligible to vote did I fail to do so.
From Susie Bond’s website
“It was a deliberate (and rather feeble) act of defiance against the prospect of having an elected Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC). I was appalled at the politicisation of the police force and furious at the extraordinary waste of money at a time of increased austerity.
And I wasn’t alone.
The turnout for the 2012 PCC elections was just 15%, amply demonstrating that the public is just not engaged with the process, is disinterested, or like me, appalled at the prospect of an elected representative of a political party being in charge of policing in Devon and Cornwall.
However, I have already cast my postal vote in the PCC elections in favour of Independent candidate, Bob Spencer.
I am still angry, as I was in 2012, about the ludicrous waste of money, but I decided that if we were to be stuck with the system of elected PCCs, then it had better be an Independent candidate!
And who better?
Take 5 minutes to read about Bob on his website (http://bob-spencer-4-pcc.co.uk/about-me/). He brings with him a wealth of knowledge and 30 years of experience of policing and will have no need to employ expensive consultants to steer him through the complexities of managing the D&C force.
I wish Bob well in the final days of electioneering. As he says on his website:
“A strong leader who will not shy from unpopular decisions, I will advocate vociferously for the community to have the policing they want and need. Critically I have the skills and experience needed to challenge the Police to ensure they deliver for the communities of Devon, Cornwall, Torbay and Isles of Scilly. As an Independent I am free to act and free to speak on your behalf without political pressures.”
Bob Spencer banner
EDDC has to publish details of “key decisions” it intends to discuss only in the secret part of agendas. This list is in the current agenda for the next Cabinet meeting on 11 May 2016. Here they are:
Sports and Social Club rents
The boundary review for West Hill
Community Infrastructure Levy governance issues
Business Support – options for the future
Thelma Hulbert Gallery – options
Does anyone see any good reason why ANY of these should be secret?
And doesn’t “Business Support – options for the future” scare you – especially as EDDC will be contributing heavily to this via the Local Enterprise Partnership?
“EDF (EDF.PA) needs to change its strategy and invest in renewable energy rather than putting money into something as complicated as the Hinkley Point nuclear project, French Minister of State for State Reform Jean-Vincent Place said.
The comments on Thursday by the former head of the left-wing Greens contradict those of French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron, who has argued that EDF must go ahead with the 18 billion pound project to build two nuclear plants in Britain.
“EDF needs to change its strategic vision,” Jean-Vincent Place said in an interview on Europe 1 radio.
“EDF should put its money into renewable energy, rather than into a project which has so many difficulties,” the junior minister added.
The government was to discuss EDF’s finances on Wednesday ahead of an EDF board meeting on Friday.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-edf-hinkleypoint-idUKKCN0XI0NG
S106 money is that due to a town or parish where a developer has had to enter into an agreement to provide facilities or infrastructure to mitigate damage caused by a development.
This is the Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council that reveals how little EDDC knows about how much money is still uncollected from S106 agreements. It should be noted that EDDC employed a S106 Officer and a Community Engagement officer for many years. Indeed, this is the convoluted procedure a town or parish has to go through to access its share of S106 contributions which mentions them by title:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s106_agreement_monitoring_and_co#incoming-797580
and it states that the S106 officer knows how much money is available to each town and parish.
The request:
Dear Mr Metcalfe,
Thank you for your request for information. Please see our response to
your request below with supporting documentation attached.
This request concerns agreements made under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 (known as s106 agreements) particularly during
financial years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 (to date) and compliance with
these s106 agreements.
1. How many s106 agreements were made by EDDC in each of the years stated above?
2011/12 – 170 registered agreements
2012/13 – 196
2013/14 – 297
2014/15 – 307
Please note that these are registered agreements and some are likely to
have been withdrawn, refused, or be resubmissions or supplemental agreements. Please see the attached spreadsheet for a breakdown of s106
agreements, where it’s been colour coded into financial years for ease of
reference.
2. What financial contributions were due to EDDC arising from s106
agreements in each of the years stated above?
We do not hold this information in a format which enables us to easily identify the financial contributions that were due to EDDC arising from s106 agreements in each financial year.
To find this detail we would need to check through each agreement during the stated time period. The attached list of each of the applications where a s106 agreement was registered can be searched online
here:
[1]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/view-pl…
Simply enter the relevant application number into the search box and all
associated documents can then be accessed.
We estimate that to search through each of these agreements to locate the
ones specifically relevant to your request will take around 30 hours of
officer time. We know that it has taken an experienced officer some 6
hours to search through 200 of these documents and this is what we have
based our estimate on. This information is therefore exempt from
disclosure under s12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I am sorry that we cannot provide this information but hope that you will
find the application reference numbers helpful in conducting any searches
of your own. If you have any difficulties using the online search
facility, please let us know.
3. What financial contributions were received by EDDC for s106
agreements in each of the years stated above?
2014/15 – £2,464,737.56
2015/16 – £1,825,993.28.
4. In respect to monitoring of s106 agreements, how many agreements
have not been complied with in each of the years stated above? In cases
where there has been a breach of the obligation, how many direct actions
has EDDC taken to recover the payments due and expenses? –
This information is not held.
5. How much revenue for s106 agreements in total is now owing to EDDC
(regardless of what year the agreement was made) because payment has not
been made?
This information is not held.
If you are not satisfied with the way we have responded to your request,
please fill in our online complaint form[2]www.eastdevon.gov.uk/making_a_complaint or write to the Monitoring
Officer, EDDC, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL.
Yours sincerely,
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s106_agreement_monitoring_and_co#incoming-797580
…”So let’s not get too excited by the idea of devolution, Osborne-style. It’s not what we’ve campaigned for all these years. The Municipal Journal last week allowed Cllr George Nobbs, Leader of Norfolk County Council a page to share his frustration. Beneath a photo of the East Anglian flag and the headline ‘Killing off devolution’, he wrote:
“There is no more enthusiastic proponent of regional devolution than myself. I have supported the idea of moving powers from Whitehall to East Anglia all my adult life. When on Budget day the Chancellor announced a draft deal for East Anglia I nailed my colours to the mast in the most literal way, flying the flag of East Anglia from Norfolk County Hall. However, remarkably, the institutional arrogance of central government seems set to give us a deal that cannot be sold locally. As it stands not one of the three counties that make up the ‘Eastern Powerhouse’ look likely to be able to sell the current deal to members or residents…
The current ‘devolution deal’ was the result of a knee-jerk reaction to the Scottish referendum result and bears no resemblance to any other form of devolution in the UK, other than the insistence on the office of a London-style mayor for rural England…
The office of elected mayor is fine for London but universally opposed in shire county England. Senior government ministers have said time and time again that in the past devolution has failed because it was top-down. They had learned, they said. This would be bottom-up. We could design our own deal. We would be in the driving seat, they said. When we urged them to consider any alternative to an elected mayor (because we couldn’t sell it to our citizens) they said it was non-negotiable. ‘No mayor no deal’ was the answer. They were not even prepared to consider changing the one word mayor for another title.”
First it was Prescott, now it’s Osborne. You can have any colour of devolution you want as long as it’s black. So black you can’t see what’s going on. The mayoral model is non-negotiable because it’s part of a London-party consensus that values opaqueness above all. The democratic model, taking decisions openly, in full view of the press and public, and transparently, subject to the forensic examination of political debate in council chamber or legislative assembly, is judged not fit for purpose. End all the politics, we’re told. Actions, not words. But efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things, and without continual accountability it’s very easy both to do things wrong and to do the wrong things.
Next month, we’re told, we need to reject the unaccountable Brussels bureaucracy in favour of, well, what? How is accountability unfolding here? We need to put our own, British values first, apparently. Values like privatising our schools and our NHS, transforming them into profit centres far beyond any hope of democratic redress.
We’ve been told many times that the dissolution of English political unity would be too high a price to pay for the benefits regionalism brings, even if the regions reflect deep-rooted identities like Wessex and East Anglia. Yet the displacement of our historic shires by ‘Greater Lincolnshire’, ‘North Midlands’, ‘Tees Valley’ and other mayored innovations isn’t viewed as a problem. (Nor is it viewed as part of the ‘euro-plot’, as would any attempt to give England the regional governments now standard across all large west European countries.) As Ben Page, Chief Executive of Ipsos MORI, also writing in the Municipal Journal, noted, “The new rash of elected mayors for improbable geographies face some real challenges in getting noticed in any way at all.” That’s just it though. They’re not there to be noticed. A revolution in how England is governed is now underway as secret deals are lined up for sign-off. Personality mayors and commissioners for made-up areas will preside as local services are handed wholesale to global financial interests.
Do the public care? According to Ben Page’s data they do. Around half (49%) support the principle of decentralising local decision-making powers, with only 17% opposed. There are two main worries that are shared by 58% of those who don’t support devolution.
One is the spectre of ‘postcode lottery’ – the fear that services would start to vary between areas to an unacceptable degree (though it’s surprisingly acceptable for the Irish or the French to have different standards). Keeping the number of English regions well below double figures is one way to minimise this fear: the present hotch-potch of ‘improbable geographies’ is going to have to be sorted out sooner or later and the sooner the better. Another way is to make devolution real, so that regional politicians cannot blame Whitehall if they fail to match the standards of the best.
The second worry is that politicians in the provinces aren’t up to the job and so can’t be trusted with real power. That’s hardly surprising: real talent isn’t going to be attracted to run an ever-shrinking range of services subject to ever more intrusive interference from ministers and their civil servants anxious about poor performance. Breaking that vicious circle is easy. Tolerate responsibility through the ballot box, open up the opportunities and the talent will come. Or, to be more accurate, it will stay exactly where it is and not be lured to London.
… Meanwhile, the British State for which we’re supposed to boldly patrify shows how much it really cares about our identity, turning our ancient shires, the roots of our democracy, into clone-zones of the metropolis and topping each with its own little Caesar.
http://wessexregionalists.blogspot.co.uk/2016_05_01_archive.html
John Hart, Leader DCC on Spotlight this evening saying he has written “six or seven letters” asking the Government if the Heart of the Southwest Local Enterprise Partnership devolution bid must include a Mayor for Devon and Somerset and, if so, “what extra benefits would it bring, if any?”
The Who Cares What You Think? conference at EDDC HQ , Knowle, last Saturday (23 April marked a turning point for the new political group of Independents, established in March 2015, just one year ago.
They have now joined forces with colleagues from across the South West.
Background
The East Devon Alliance of Independents (IEDA) have been hard at work since winning remarkable support in the May 2015 elections, which saw the number of Independent East Devon District Councillors increase five-fold, to 15.
Since then, two major IEDA reports have been accepted by Parliament:
House of Lords Select Committee on the economics of housing in the UK and
National Audit Office (Local Enterprise Partnerships)
The latter report, on LEPs, has just been sent to a higher level, the Parliamentary Accounts Committee (PAC), at the suggestion of the National Audit Office (NAO).
Making a difference
Meanwhile, the new IEDA Councillors have brought positive change:
– raising the level of debate
– producing well-researched reports so that decisions can be based on evidence rather than party allegiance
– introducing proper scrutiny.
Full report on the Who Cares What You Think? conference coming soon.
“The operation comes after the Institute of Religious Works (IOR) became aware of 544 suspect transactions which raised concerns of tax evasion.
The IOR have previously been caught up in scandal with accounts allegedly being linked to mafia activity, particularly during the 1980s before the Vatican tightened up its financial regulations. …
… Vatican efforts to put its finances in order initially accelerated after Pope Francis’s election in 2013. But an economic reform commission he established has since been disbanded and three of its members are currently on trial with the journalists.
Moves to have all the Vatican books externally audited have also been a start-stop affair.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) were appointed in December to do the job by powerful Australian cardinal George Pell, the head of the Vatican’s economic secretariat.
But PwC’s $3-million contract was suspended last week on the orders of a rival department, the secretariat of state, leaving Pell ‘a little surprised.’ ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3565161/Vatican-auditors- “
Fortunately, there is no proof of the existance of an East Devon Mafia …
East Devon Watch 