Spin, spin, spin: DWP admits inventing quotes from fake’benefits claimants’ for leaflet


“The Department for Work and Pensions makes admission following FoI request from Welfare Weekly about leaflet featuring bogus sickness benefit claimants

The DWP made the admission in response to a freedom of information request from the news website Welfare Weekly. The leaflet was taken down from the DWP’s site and replaced with one that illustrated Zac and Sarah only in silhouette, along with a note clarifying: “The people in this factsheet aren’t real. We’ve used these stories to show how sanctions can work in practice.”

… In its response to the FoI request, the DWP said: “The photos used are stock photos and along with the names do not belong to real claimants. The stories are for illustrative purposes only.

“We want to help people understand when sanctions can be applied and how they can avoid them by taking certain actions. Using practical examples can help us achieve this.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/18/dwp-admits-making-up-positive-quotes-from-benefits-claimants-for-leaflet

So, not real people and not real stories. Thank goodness for the Freedom of Information Act for revealing this!

“The House of Lords is bust” says Electoral Reform Society

“What we’ve found:

The cost of the Lords – In the 2010-2015 parliament, £360,000 was claimed by Peers in years they failed to vote once. In the last Parliamentary session alone, over £100,000 was claimed by Peers who did not vote at all. At the same time, Cameron’s plans for an addition 50 Peers will cost at least £1.3m per year.

Independence – In the 2014-15 session nearly half (45%) of all Crossbenchers participated in 10 or fewer votes – compared to an average of just 8% of party political Peers, while a quarter of appointments to the House of Lords between 1997 and 2015 were former MPs.

Professional politicians – Over a third of Lords (34%) previously worked in politics. Just 1% come from manual backgrounds.

A supersized House – to rebalance the upper chamber strictly in line with the 2015 General Election results would require the appointment of an additional 723 members.

Out of date – 44% of Lords list their main addresses in London and the South East, while 54% are 70 or older.”

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/its-official-house-lords-completely-bust

The dark side of political patronage and PR

Ms Mone, famous for modelling her saucy underwear, was made a Tory peer as a reward after she opposed Scottish independence and came out for the Tories at the election. She has been made ” business start-up czar by David Cameron. However, doubts are being cast on her business acumen by other Scottish entrepreneurs:

“… PRESSURE is growing on the UK Government to explain its appointment of Michelle Mone as its start-up czar after another leading Scottish businessman cast doubt over her suitability for the post.

The announcement that the lingerie entrepreneur would lead a review into encouraging start-ups in areas of high unemployment has caused controversy, amid claims that her high-profile owed more to skilful PR manipulation than meaningful success in the private sector.

… Despite achieving fame through the tabloids as the joint-founder of Ultimo bras and selling a rags to riches story having been raised in Glasgow’s East End, Ms Mone’s firm MJM International suffered losses of £780,000 in its last year, 2013, before passing its assets to its parent company, Ultimo Brands, which also made a loss, and ceasing to trade. Ms Mone has sold most of Ultimo Brands to a firm from Sri Lanka but remains a director.
An auditor’s report on MJM International accounts, for a period to the end of 2013, state that the company made “significant losses” over the previous 11 months and made a comment on a £135,000 transaction.

The report states: “With respect to one related party balance included within amounts owed to related undertakings of £135,000, the audit evidence available to us was limited because no confirmation of the related party balance was provided.”

A representative for Ms Mone, who is a Conservative Party supporter, said “no comment” after being offered the chance to respond to Mr Pirrie’s comments. …”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13599093.Millionaire_businessman_calls_on_UK_Government_to_explain_Mone_appointment/

Not-so-secret secret meetings – and the very secret Asset Management Forum

Those of you who are as eagle eyed as the Owl may have spotted that EDDC have now started publishing the agendas and minutes for some of its less well known meetings such as:

  • the Tree Task and Finish Forum (TaFF), of which Claire Wright was previously a member and prime mover;
  • the Arts and Culture TaFF, a pet project of Paul Diviani and his partner (and co-councillor) John O’Leary, which has spent a lot of money on our behalf on the Thelma Hubert Gallery in Honiton;
  • the Grounds Maintenance TaFF (yawn);
  • the Garage Management TaFF (from 2012 – double yawn)
    etc.

But just in case EDDC decide to crow about this being an example of how they have decided out of the goodness of their hearts to voluntarily be more transparent, we should mention that:

  1. EDDC are actually doing this because of the persistence of a local resident and East Devon Alliance member who has complained to the information Commissioner that EDDC are not publishing what ALL councils are already required to publish (i.e. agendas, reports and minutes of all standing forum meetings – see Definition document for principal local Authorities page 7); and
  2. EDDC has still to publish the papers for perhaps the most important of their secretive meetings, the Asset Management Forum.

EDA members and councillors are continuing to fight to have EDDC be fully transparent, so we can all see the full set of documents behind their more controversial decisions.

Scrutiny Agenda: Thursday , 30 July 2015 ; 6.00pm

Click to access 300715-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

8  NHS Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group decision on community hospital beds (pages 9 – 10)   A representative from the NEW Devon CCG has been requested to attend by the Chairman to discuss the recent decision on community beds on 16 July 2015, with particular focus on the weight given to the stakeholder report, chaired by Sir JohnEvans.
9
Financial Plan and Draft Transformation strategy
(pages 11- 45) A  chance for the Committee to debate the Financial Plan and draft Transformation
Strategy that sets both the financial and cultural approach for the future.
10
Sickness absence (pages 46–51) A report on measures in place to impact on the number of working days lost due to sickness absence. The requirement for this report was previously identified by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in reviewing the performance indicator relating to working days lost.
11 Media Protocol (pages 52 – 62) An opportunity for the Committee to familiarise themselves with the recently updated and approved protocol and raise questions in respect of the Council’s East Devon District Council communications.   The protocol as presented to Cabinet on 17 June 2015 is reproduced in these agenda papers.
12
Local Elections 7 May 2015 (pages 63 – 71)  A report of the Chief Executive on the issues raised by the Committee in relation to the recent local elections and the learning points for future elections.
13
Scrutiny forward plan (page 72)  Opportunity for the committee to raise topics for scoping, to determine if and when they should be listed on the forward plan.

Highlight:

ELECTORAL COMMISSION REPORT ON MAY 2015 VOTING PROBLEMS:
“Multiple errors
64* –Some authorities experienced more than one issue in their delivery of the elections which either individually or cumulatively may have had a detrimental impact on voters and those standing for election.
*

Seven ROs overseeing elections in the following local authorities: Allerdale, Darlington, East Devon, East Lindsey, Kingston upon Hull, Stoke on Trent, and West Lindsey.”

So, when Mark Williams makes light of his difficulties with this year’s elections and blames  pressure of work and inexperienced staff , remember that only these 7 local authorities out of a total of 433 had multiple mistakes.

 

Extraordinary Meeting of the Council – 138 page agenda and background papers

“Newly elected Councillors please note that the Extra Ordinary and Ordinary meetings will be preceded at 5.00 pm with a briefing in the Council Chamber – the Chief Executive will outline the business of the meeting and the procedures.”

 

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1227756/290715-combined-council-agenda-and-minute-book.pdf

#http://eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/council/council-agendas/

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1141091/270515-annual-council-item-15c-constitution-update.pdf

Committee stitch-ups: they happen everywhere

We know all about them in East Devon but they go all the way to the top!

Heathrow opponents Justine Greening, Theresa May and Philip Hammond have been excluded from a Cabinet committee which will rule on expansion of airport capacity in the South East.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3170781/Cameron-takes-charge-Heathrow-airport-decision-locks-Cabinet-ministers-oppose-expansion.html

The politicisation of education

Until the last election educational funding per pupil in Torbay was £1,350 per pupil whereas in other parts of the country it was up to £5,000 per pupil.

Now, 2 months after the election, and Torbay now being politically fully blue in control terms rather than blue and yellow, the government has announced that it will inject a further £1.5 million into Torbay schools.

It is a terrible thing when education is politicised.

New site for petitions to Parliament

It is now possible again to set up a petition for a subject to be debated in Parliament. When a petition reaches more than 100,000 signatures it must be debated in Parliament.

You can sign a current petition or start a new one at:
https://petition.parliament.uk/

Current petitions include:

A vote of no confidence in the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104334

Imposing taxes on foreign investors buying property worth more than £3.5 million:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104311

To sign you must give a valid email address (which is not published) and respond to a link which will be sent to that email address.

Who do you get to review Freedom of Information? Those who benefit most from destroying it

Like the NPPF that was designed by a group of developers.

Like the Food Standards Committee made up of food industry representatives.

And like public speaking at EDDC being reviewed by the Council’s majority party Executive Committee.

At this rate, the Human Rights Act will probably be reviewed by prisoners found guilty of war crimes at the International Criminal Court!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33578842

Lord Falconer concerned about missing voters

Too Many People Are Not Registered to Vote – And It’s About to Get Worse

Too many people are not registered to vote. The reasons for this vary – they don’t have the time, they are disillusioned with party politics, they don’t see how voting will make any difference to their lives. But the result is the same: they are not getting heard and the future of our country is being decided by an increasingly narrow section of society.

And it is about to get worse. This week, the government decided to bring forward by a year the end of the transition to Individual Electoral Registration, removing millions of people from the electoral register and ignoring the advice of the Electoral Commission.

This raises serious concerns for our democracy and is the latest in a long line of deeply partisan moves by a government intent on stifling democratic scrutiny and rigging the game in its favour.

The Electoral Commission has warned that 1.9million people could fall off the register if the transition deadline is brought forward.

We know what kinds of voters are more likely to be missing: they are private renters, members of the BAME communities, those who live in built up areas or towns with a high student population. Perhaps the greatest divide is between the older and younger generations: some 95% of the over-65s are on the electoral register, yet only around 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds are estimated to be registered.

The register is the beating heart of our democracy. The coming year will see a significant number of elections, which makes it even more important for the register to be as complete and accurate as possible.

But it also performs a wider function. It provides the foundation for the boundary review, which determines parliamentary constituency boundaries. The next review is due to start early in 2016 and the registers published in December 2015 will be used as its basis.

David Cameron has decided to push ahead with an arbitrary reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, despite warnings that this could lead to constituencies that do not reflect local communities.

Now he is proposing to do so on the basis of a severely depleted register with missing voters concentrated in certain communities and parts of the country – a clear move by the Government to give the Tories an electoral advantage and one that would call into question the legitimacy of our democracy.

This of course has to be placed in the context of a government who after severely restricting access to justice and reducing the ability of charities to challenge government policy in the last Parliament, has, barely two months in the job, promised to limit Freedom of Information powers, scrap the Human Rights Act, create two-classes of MPs by the backdoor and only this week published a Bill to stifle legitimate rights to take industrial action.

David Cameron’s Government may claim the one nation mantra but their politics are divisive and partisan. We will not stand by and allow millions to lose their voice.

Lord Falconer is Shadow Lord Chancellor and the shadow secretary of the state for justice

Source: Huffington Post UK

Should East Devon District Council twin with Guildford Borough Council?

Letter: Guildford Borough Council –
Where Democracy Goes to Die

I attended for the first time on Tuesday evening (July 7) the monthly Guildford Borough Council meeting. I was expecting debate on Guildford’s key issues and I wanted to experience first-hand how the elected officials that hold Guildford’s future in their hands go about safeguarding it.

What I experienced was the worst kind of self-congratulatory, derogatory, tribal politics where power grab was pretty much the order of the day.

I was expecting to see the Conservatives, having won an unprecedented 35 out of 48 seats, through no effort of their own but because of the coincidence of the general election and the fact that local election results follow national trends, being magnanimous in their victory.

Instead I witnessed contempt for the other parties, especially for the Guildford Greenbelt Group (GGG), whose only fault was to challenge the status quo and win three seats from the Conservatives.

No wonder young people are switched off politics when a number of white, middle-aged men are only interested in their own opinion and congratulating each other for the fantastic job they believe they are doing without any regard for what would be best for the borough they represent.

During the pompous proceedings there was complete disregard for all opposition, ignoring the fact that the opposition are elected members representing thousands, the majority actually*, of the borough’s residents.

Request for transparency by the GGG was denied on the questionable grounds of data privacy.

But worst of all was the election of councillor representatives for a number of charities across Guildford.

A number of concerns were raised as to how or why candidates were put forward. In any fair selection, you would expect at least a small biography from each candidate explaining why they are best suited to the position in question as well as allow the candidates to state their case for nomination.

Not in Guildford Borough Council. There is no time for anything non-partisan in there. As long as a Conservative is chosen we can dispense with such niceties.

In a vote that can only be described as a farce, the council did not explain why these people were chosen as candidates nor allow the candidates to explain to the electorate, their fellow councillors, why they were best suited for the position and its requirements.

The explanation for this? There was not enough time and the councillors would stay there for a few more hours if such proceedings were allowed. Guildford’s citizens must be proud to know that their elected representatives, in their one monthly meeting do not have enough time for democracy to take its course.

Why waste time, when the outcome is predetermined and unless you are a Conservative, you won’t be voted in?

Two cases stand out: Cllr Angela Gunning’s removal from the Guildford Waterside Centre as well as Cllr Julia McShane’s removal from the Westborough and Park Barn Community Centre.

In a move that represents the nasty approach the Conservatives plan to follow for the next four years, prior to the meeting Cllr Iseult Roche [Con, Worplesdon] notified Cllr Gunning [Lab, Stoke], against whom she was standing, of her intention to withdraw her nomination.

Then, during the proceedings, Conservative Cllr Roche decided to withdraw her withdrawal whilst at the same time making a small speech as to why she was the most appropriate candidate for the position, the only speech allowed.

Lo and behold, she was voted in with Conservative councillors voting, as throughout, almost en bloc.

Similarly, Cllr McShane [Lib Dem, Westborough], a long-standing councillor for her ward was voted out of the Westborough and Park Barn community centre in favour of the two Conservative councillors in the ward, who had stood as “paper candidates”. One of them had not even turned up for the council meeting.

In a council where the leader proclaims the importance of re-building the council’s damaged reputation, yet sees no issues with remaining in business with a convicted forger and deceiver, we should only expect the council’s resources to be used in favour of the narrow-minded Conservatives’ political agenda instead of the well-being of all of Guildford borough’s citizens, to improve living standards right across the borough.

At the same time, the opposition can be ignored and held in contempt throughout.

As the elections held that night showed, there was no concern for the needs of the external organisations, only the needs of the Conservatives. The next four years will deteriorate Guildford’s standard of living for most residents unless they happen to support the Conservatives.

The council meeting clearly showed that in Guildford Borough, local politics do not transcend party politics and petty behaviours. No wonder it switches people off.

George Dokimakis is a member of the Labour Party.

*47%, of those that voted in the recent GBC elections, voted Conservative.

http://www.guildford-dragon.com/2015/07/09/letter-guildford-borough-council-where-democracy-goes-to-die/

EDDC Freedom of Information overload: it’s all the fault of heir hunters!

It’s Happy-Clappy Midweek Herald day again – all the local good news (apart from shed burglaries) until we get to page 25. There we find a story that EDDC wants to recruit an extra officer to deal with Freedom of Information requests.

Yes, you might think, they certainly need one after two high-profile run-ins with the Information Commissioner recently, one of which led to EDDC appearing in court (in a case which they lost) and one which criticised them for not offering basic guidance on what was needed for them to comply with a request. Both cases involved serious questions about relocation from the Knowle.

But no, it isn’t planning issues (which, from the whatdotheyknow website form a large part of their enquiries), it’s:

companies asking questions about council contracts

and

heir hunters asking about public burials and next of kin!

Now, this raises a fair few questions.

Why are there so many requests from companies asking about council contracts? We know from Information Commissioner v EDDC that the general public are certainly not allowed to see contracts – commercial confidentiality is always cited as the reason not to provide information. But it seems that companies may be getting information we don’t get.

And surely heir-hunters are seeking information already in the public domain.

Whitewash, hogwash and brainwash – with all the washes being given a fast spin by EDDC’s poorly-named “Communications” Department.

Planning and democracy

Andrew Rawnsley, Observer:

” … What is the alternative? Well, there is dictatorship. That is a way of getting airports, power stations, roads, railways and other large-scale infrastructure built much more quickly. Turn me into Stalin and I can build houses where I like because I have a grand vision of what is best for the nation. Give autocratic power to exponents of fracking and they will have a drilling rig anywhere they fancy. The cheerleaders for expanding Heathrow point to China and, as if it were the clinching argument for laying down more tarmac, say that the Chinese are banging out a new airport every week – or something like that. That you can do when you do not have to be troubled by democratic debate and public consent and can crush communities with the pen stroke of a Beijing autocrat.

Democracy is much more complicated. It is fractious. It can be tortuously slow to arrive at decisions. It can be extremely frustrating to men with grand plans. Thank goodness for that. As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the other ones.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/05/planning-policy-major-infrastructure-heathrow-fracking-democracy

Voters – targets for the future – and those polling stations must be reviewed

Electoral Commission targets for voter registration – Mr Williams is no doubt working on these targets as we write!  Hmmm.

On-going work to get people registered to vote

From 1 July 2015, Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) across Great Britain will be carrying out a comprehensive household canvass. They will send ‘Household Enquiry Forms’ to all properties to identify who is resident at an address and eligible to be registered. This will help EROs identify how many of the 1.9 million register entries are redundant and should be removed before the publication of the revised registers in December 2015; and how many relate to an individual who is entitled to be on the register and therefore needs to complete an individual registration application.

The Electoral Commission will run campaigns ahead of the elections in May 2016 to encourage people to register and to make the registers more accurate and complete. In Scotland, a specific campaign to encourage 15 – 17 year olds to register to vote will coincide with the canvass.

Attainers (16 and 17 year olds)

The Commission’s report found that there remains an issue with the number of registered attainers (16 and 17 year olds). There were fewer than 250,000 attainers on the May 2015 registers, a fall of 47% since February / March 2014. The Commission largely attributes the decline to the one-off lack of comprehensive household canvass activity in 2014. In 2015, comprehensive household activity will take place and each Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) will have plans in place maximise the number of attainers on their registers.

 Polling Stations

We hear from a correspondent that EDDC did not make a review of polling stations before the last election – this was a mandatory task which should have been completed, put out for public consultation and agreed formally at Council well before the election. Here is how Dorset explained it:, which applies to all councils:

https://www.dorsetforyou.com/article/412025/Review-of-polling-districts-polling-places-and-polling-stations

It seems the Electoral Commission has informed EDDC that it must not wait any longer to conduct such a review and it MUST be started in July 2015.  A number of polling stations are no longer fit-for-purpose as regards facilities for disabled people and consideration will need to be given to polling stations that may give rise to perceived conflict with councillor interests.  Watch this space.

The requirements:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/electoral-administrator/polling-place-reviews?

Here is how you appeal if you think a particular polling station does not meet requirements:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/electoral-administrator/polling-place-reviews/polling-place-review-appeals

Tories of East Devon – You just don’t get it, do you?

Wednesday 3rd June

The motion to delay the Knowle Sale by 6 months was placed before Full Council by Cllr Cathy Gardner and Cllr Matt Booth.  They both presented very reasoned cases for the delay and were conciliatory in their approach.  They stressed Transparency to the residents of East Devon and in particular Sidmouth.  They did not oppose the move merely asked for more time to allow greater consultation to ensure that the Council made the right decision.

The reaction was set by Cllr Williamson who insisted that as the decision had already been validated by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (with a set of “independent” auditors) there was no need to delay – in fact he maintained that there was a need for greater speed.  Other speakers opposing the motion spoke of the need to move and how inappropriate the current building was.

Tories – you just don’t get it!  It is recognised that the current buildings are not fit for purpose AND SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE – but what that is and how due process is applied is the central issue in this motion.

Previous Committees and Councils sanctioned a move to Sky Park – not a mention of that! Then a sudden concept of two premises – why the change?

The appeal to the Freedom of Information request was scathing of the Council – no acceptance of that or any explanation of what was so important within the papers that they could not be released – I doubt most Tory members had even read (or been able to read) them.

Reference to election results and other “facts” but no concept of the Perception of the public – they rightly feel marginalised.

Tories – you seem to have forgotten that you serve your community – these assets are not yours – they are not even EDDC’s – they are owned by the Council Tax Payers of East Devon – you merely act as temporary custodians in the passage of time.  You MUST consult with your Community – you have failed to do this as on other occasions.  You were given the opportunity last night to make a fresh start with Openness and Transparency – you rejected that offer with your customary arrogance.

The motion was defeated by a recorded vote – this may come back to bite you!

Owl

 

Tribunal’s decision, on Knowle ‘secret’ papers, featured on Radio Devon News.

An interview with Jeremy Woodward ,whose Freedom of Information (FOI)  request set in motion a chain of events which has led to the Tribunal’s decision yesterday against EDDC, can be heard here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02q2k4d#auto at 3mins 30secs. It was broadcast again an hour later, at about 1hour 3mins.

Immediately following the Tribunal’s report, another FOI request on the subject of EDDC’s office relocation was sent,this time by Chair of Save Our Sidmouth, Richard Thurlow. Details at this link:   http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/knowle-relocation-project-progress.html

 

 

“Is the Deputy Chief Executive fit for purpose?”, some are now asking

EDDC’s press release today (see our previous post) speaks of ‘lessons to be learned’ from the Tribunal’s scathing report, though it overlooks the fact that the criticism was “unanimous”, and not solely from the judge. There is no reference to the reportedly “discourteous” manner exhibited by EDDC , though the Council regrets  that the Tribunal found it at times “unhelpful”.

To compare this press release with the one posted earlier today from Save Our Sidmouth (which contains the the Tribunal’s devastating comments), go to these links:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2015/05/council-prepares-to-release-documents-that-sparked-tribunal/
and http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/05/05/sos-press-release-on-tribunal-decision/

Hugo foresees Armaggedon on Friday if he and his mates aren’t the winners

A most extraordinary letter from Hugo Swire on today’s Express and Echo website:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/East-Devon-s-Hugo-Swire-scenario-happen-Friday/story-26440833-detail/story.html

Really we have just one observation:  should someone who gets this hysterical about democracy at work really be allowed to be in Parliament?

It’s time for cool heads and measured actions – seems to us we will get that from Claire Wright but NOT from Hugo Swire!

Who will take the decision whether to appeal the appeal for disclosurof Knowle relocation documents?

The Chief Executive (Williams) and Deputy Chief Executive (Cohen) along with ? who else must have taken the original decision to suppress the reports discussed in secret meetings when they were requested by Mr Woodward,

This decision to suppress the reports, to our knowledge was never brought to any public council committee.  Who took the decision to suppress?

Eventually, the Information commissioner said that (redacted) reports should be published.

The ” council” then decided to appeal this decision.  Who made that decision and why?  Who reviewed it and agreed with it?  How many councillors knew what was happening?  Who thought up the idea of saying reports could not be published because the consultant was “an embedded employee” of the council?

The Deputy Chief Executive (Cohen) was chosen to present the justification for suppression and appeal at the court case in August 2014.  The council’s solicitor (Lennox Gordon) presumably must have been asked for advice (though at the Court case they had engaged an outside barrister to present the case).  The Chief Executive and ? who else must have then sanctioned this course of action.  It was, to our knowledge, never brought to any public council committee.  Who else knew about this?

At the Court case, Deputy Chief Executive Cohen admitted that at least one report from the outside consultant (Pratten) had been changed by him – Cohen – before being given to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee were not aware of this at the time and (as far as we know) still do not know what was changed or why.  Who else (if anyone)  was involved in the decision to change the document before it went to them?  Have members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee since seen the original?  Would it have changed their views if they did not see it and have not since seen it?

Are there more reports (changed, not changed) other than those under review that they and other councillors should have seen prior to making an informed decision about relocation either to Skypark or Honiton/Exmouth and then sale of Knowle that might have affected their decision?

After the Court case in August 2014 it appears that EDDC dragged its heels in providing the judge with documents and insisted that some of them were illegible.  However, subsequently, legible copies were found and submitted as late as March 2015.  Who insisted that only illegible copies were available?  Who knew that there were legible copies available and why were they delayed?  Why the long delay?

Now that the court has heavily criticised all those involved, the decision can again be appealed, at probably even greater cost than the last appeal.  We do not yet know the full cost of the last appeal except that it is more than £11,000 PLUS officer time, as EDDC never apportions cost of officer time to its work.

So, who takes the decision to appeal the appeal?  The same people who suppressed the documents?  The person/people who altered at least one document before it went to a committee?  The people who said that some documents were illegible when they were not?   The people criticised by the court for being “unhelpful and discourteous?

Who is left who has not been involved in this sorry saga who can be trusted to find out the answers and make decisions now?  If we return the “same old” how can we be sure this will not be brushed under a carpet so precariously balanced on all that is now underneath it?

Brave independent councillors kept bringing this subject up time and time again only to be told to stop tilting at windmills.  What is here is definitely not windmills.

Only a vote for Independents tomorrow can ensure that the carpet is lifted so that we can all see what has been swept underneath it all these years.

Including, of course, some searching questions about the seven year delay to a Local Plan which has left us at the mercy of rapacious developers.

The  future is in your hands tomorrow.