Forum Replies Created
In Wrexham, we have a situation were many prospective Councilors at the time of an election put themselves forward as Independents yet if successful they then join a Group – for one simple reason – to try and get a Chairs on Scrutiny or on the Executive. Self-benefit!!
If these so-called Independent Council Members actually wanted to be in a Group they should then at least come together to have a’manifesto’ that reflects the direction they want to move Wrexham. Currently, they can change direction on a whim the same as the wind.
Seconded! Couldn’t have put it better myself. I think that only genuinely independent councillors should be able to label themselves as such and the non-major party aligned groupings need different names and also should produce a manifesto before the election. That way, even if they say, we plan to reign in budget spending and make cuts and austerity across the board then they have to state this. Would be interesting to see if anyone would be willing to vote for all cuts and no positives.
Those prosecutions listed above in the articles relate to people giving false information. People have been using the right to remain silent – it’s a refusal to interact or acknowledge these callous human beings – rather than someone explicitly saying ‘I refuse to give my details’ – although some might but then they could effectively implicate themselves doing this. On many occassions admission of guilt for receiving an FPN has been on the recorded confession or discussion relating to the dropping of litter as captured by a Kingdom Enforcer’s camera. Even the police or courts cannot force you to talk and implicate yourself for a so called offence.
So what is being discussed is effectively a loophole. If you do not speak to the officers and ignore them and do not return to something that may identify you – e.g. your vehicle, your home, your place of work etc… then by Wrexham council and the police’s admission they cannot and will not force personal details out of people that Kingdom are pursuing. Likewise if you make it to a safe spot – Kingdom barred area such as Aldi or Eagle’s Meadow then they do not have permission to pursue you further (they can wait for you outside these places) or if you just go and sit in a cafe and order some food/drink – likewise most establishments would take a dim view of enforcement officers harassing their clientele. Then if you wait them out, as eventually they will get bored or realise the time taken to pursue an FPN fine is not worth it, based upon the fact that they have targets (and however it is being labelled) a commission structure – non-communicating and non compliant targets are not deemed worth it and they move onto the next poor sap who probably will pay up.
These actual actions by the Kingdom operatives proves that it is not about enforcement and bringing wrongoers to task and punishing them, it’s about revenue generation ONLY. It’s discrimination and extortion to only demand payment from individuals not savvy enough to carry out the required avoidance tactics. I imagine it becomes quite comical to see angry bearded or gammon faced Kingdom Officers trying to challenge someone only for them to be completely blanked and then popping into Starbucks for a coffee and a read of a newspaper for 30 minutes – I bet it proper p*sses then off.
The other method that seems to have been working is that members of the public have turned their own cameras on and recorded the officers – putting their actions through a fine tooth comb and funnily enough that has also made them back off and not pursue an FPN. If they were behaving with 100% transparency what would they have to fear and cause them to back down if they were being filmed going about their duties by the other party?
I think when there are almost 10,000 people on the NWAKS (North Wales Against Kingdom Security) all adhering to the methods discussed above and openly sharing this advice with their peer groups, people making YouTube videos about this advice then surely we are talking about mass civil disobedience?
If something becomes unenforceable to certain groups of people then that law is broken. In which case they’d have to either push through a by-law change that demands the police turn up in refusal cases (massive waste of limited resources) or drop it entirely and take a completely different approach to litter enforcement and reduction entirely.
They need one of those Zoltar machines next to it like they have in Llandudno, reminds me of the film Big!
I heard they were reforming and playing a special gig in the performance space.May 3, 2018 at 1:29 am in reply to: Rough Sleeping Censorship on Wrexham Town Matters Group #148499
I completely agree with you. The reason I mentioned it in the first place is because Wrexham Town Matters has 9.7k of members so it’s one of the main more general outlets used for the average Wrexhamer (and those from farther afield) to discuss and learn things going on about the town.
There’s always just this constant push against ideas deemed to fall outside of the ‘Wrexham is a Paradise at all costs view’. So critique of Ty Pawb frowned upon, homeless frowned upon, general badmouthing of council decision making – frowned upon.
I think there’s an active responsibility on leaders/admin of influential discussion groups to let conversation flow without trying to control it when views do not necessarily match up with their own. There’s also a complete ban on political discussion on there (political threads will be deleted).
I think it sends a bad message when you push out the idea to 9.7k members that photos of homeless people are bad for the town. A lot of people who suffer from groupthink are just going to read that, agree without commenting, go along with it & therefore voila unhelping and potentially sensitive topic stifled. Politics talk already supressed. We’re just walking the line here that the mainstream media uses to keep people compliant – Government great, record employment, happiest town revealed, here’s a figure skating kitten, positive sporting hero, Lol typical Dreary May Weather.
If it wasn’t for Wrexham.com other main actors and influential figures from Wrexham would prevent the overall flow of conversation online in terms of how the town and how public figures are perceived. Long may we have the right to vent, debate, mock, agree, disagree and discuss love of sausages and pastries on this forum.
Some excellent points Council Watcher. I too was wondering if the 490 was an increase in numbers vs the original members of ‘free parking club’.
It also begs the question that if trade unions etc… are involved could more individuals employed by the council also demand the same perk? Including those who work in schools etc…
This would mean the £100 rate would be offered to thousands, effectively nuking parking revenues. Then you reach the tipping point where it’s considered unfair that other residents of Wrexham are not also offered £100 annual parking.
In fact reading through it all, I’m not happy in the slightest. The consultation has actually been completely deceptive & has not put across the full revenue potential of scrapping free parking and making a large number of spaces chargeable.
So by incorrectly claiming that the scrapping of free parking makes a saving of £49,000 they were ultimately only ever planning on charging the 490 a maximum of £100 per permit.
Really the scrapping of free parking represents a revenue generation of £49,000, which is completely paltry if you consider that if a scenario was put forward that the 490 paid full market rate and all had to pay £600 a year (let’s call this the upper limit). Then it could have been portrayed as a revenue generation opportunity of £294,000!
Now if the councillors and top management were willing to help bear the brunt of the difficult decisions faced by the rest of Wrexham’s general public, then this fantastic additional revenue stream I’ve just identified and the Exec board have clearly suppressed would bring in much needed cash that would mitigate some of the harsher cuts to front line services and those for children and vulnerable.
The Exec Board have been so vociferous that the disabled plus country park users must pay to keep things running, so why are the 490 also not paying to do the same thing?
I’m more than confident that had this been paid as a revenue generation opportunity then there’d have been overwhelming public backing for this. But no, they’ve cleverly got the public to agree that Councillors etc… should only have to pay a maximum of £100 for parking when the public are expected to pay up to 6 x more. Suckered!
Also easy enough for senior executive board members on senior pay to say they’ll pay the £100 and not claim back when it won’t affect them in the slightest but offer them the delusion that they actually listened to the public for once and are ‘paying their own way’ like the public (1/6th gesture rate).
What an absolute load of rubbish. Shame the local elections are only taking place in England tomorrow.
It’s a step in the right direction, but now there’s a value assigned to it when the general public are going to be asking why they have to pay £600 a year to park in Waterworld, but others get to pay just £100 to park in all of the town’s council ran car parks.
So a £600 perk has basically been trimmed to a £500 perk. Some very much still riding the gravy train.
Of course then councillors can claim it back, which therefore some won’t be affected in the slightest. What an absolute farce.
With Clr Bithell already expressing opposition locally, meaning the council are probably going to reject it out of hand, it’s going to be interesting as to whether or not our esteemed legislators from afar are going to enforce it on us just to appear compliant to court rulings.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .