Matt
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Further examples of Virgin Media contractors bad behaviour reported on Twitter:
@wrexham i'm having work done to my house, my builders asked the virgin media contractors if the could hold off digging right next to a wall they had literally just built to save structural damage, they then resorted to bully boy tactics and have now blocked access to my drive.
— Nathan Roberts (@NathanRoberts85) May 25, 2018
I’ve just fired off an FOI request to the council requesting the video, following advice that there should be no objections to them providing the information to members of the public or the press as it was previously part of public record. If I do not get a satisfactory response I am escalating the issue to ICO.
FOI Request: Wrexham Council Meeting Video/Transcript – Kingdom Security Zero Tolerance
Hello,
Following up from this article and a recent scrutiny meeting on Kingdom:
‘Slimmer’ and ‘limited’ minutes all you get as Council’s webcasting archives deemed off limits
I would like to request access to a video recording or transcription that pertains to an item within the meeting:
Executive Board
Tuesday, 8th December, 2015 10.00 am
http://moderngov.wrexham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=129&MId=2999Specifically regarding Item 100 – Proposals for the Enhancement of the Council’s Enforcement Service
http://moderngov.wrexham.gov.uk/documents/s500002225/Item%207.pdfThere was previously a webcast link to this Item, that has now expired
https://www.wrexham.public-i.tv/site/mg_bounce.php?mg_a_id=2936&mg_m_id=2999Which means it was available as part of public record and should therefore still be within the public interest and the general public’s right to access this video, regardless of the 6 month time limit policy.
If it is not possible to directly provide a video of this item, can someone please do a full transcription of this section of the video to provide an electronic text copy of what was said by the respective councillors during this item?
The meeting minutes do not represent sufficient coverage of the item in question as I want to see any references made to zero tolerance in terms of how the Kingdom enforcement policy was developed, which appear to be completely absent from the meeting minutes.
This is following up from comments made by Clr Bithell in a recent scrutiny committee that took place in April 2018 – https://www.wrexham.com/news/angry-councillors-to-further-review-kingdom-enforcement-as-questions-raised-over-who-decided-zero-tolerance-policy-147520.html
“Lead Member Cllr David A Bithell has said that policy was clearly stated in a public council meeting in December 2015 and was mentioned in the debate on that day. “
If this information has been clearly stated as asserted by Clr Bithell, then it is in the public interest and for other councillors involve in the whole scrutiny process and the press to be able to access this information as evidence that what Clr Bithell is stating is fact.
If this information is withheld (when previously available to the public, so therefore not too sensitive to distribute) then it shows a lack of transparency in terms of Wrexham Council’s proceedings. Councillors should not be able to refer back to previous meetings where no evidence of what was stated is available to members of the public and the full set of councillors.
Otherwise decisions can be made without good faith and councillors could end up being misled on the words (without substance) of leading Executive Board members and in turn fail to make the right decisions or not have the right information to make any challenges or appeals.
Objection Handling
Following the official FOI request guidelines
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request/if-your-request-is-turned-downI provide the following notes regarding objections:
i) Technical Objections: There can be no technical objections to this request as a copy of the video in any format or a transcription will be acceptable
ii) Sensitive Information Objections: There can be no sensitive information objections to this request as the information was previously available as part of public record
iii) Cost Objections: It would be considered highly unlikely that there are any cost objections to this request as it is unlikely to cost more than £450 to find and extract the specific information requested – as even a transcription of the Item section at commercial rate would fall well below that cost plus subsequent admin costs.
If this information is not provided or a satisfactory response is not provided as to why I am not allowed access to this information, I will escalate a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Your assistance with this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
[quote quote=149644]
“There is £5bn earmarked over the next 15 years for the Metro, to improve public transport across the south Wales region and includes taking over control from Network Rail and upgrading the Valleys lines.”
What nothing for North Wales.
Not directly, no. The South Wales network is higher priority at the moment as the article explains:
“Complaints about overcrowding, particularly on the Valleys lines, and the decades old rolling stock”
But I have read elsewhere that when the South Wales Metro get their new state of the art trains, some of their existing fleet could be repurposed and used up here.[/quote]
Second class North Wales not considered a priority as always. Oh but don’t worry we might get promised some hand-me-downs.
Surely when awarding the franchise they should have considered a bid that actually took a holistic Wales view & had provisions for improving links between North-South and also the proposed North Wales Metro system.
[quote quote=149626]
This doesn’t bode well for the next year of Pritchard rule..[/quote]Indeed. I couldn’t help but notice that there was more than 1 comment on Facebook remarking that this style of leadership is classed as bullying. Do you think he forgot the cameras were on and filming him? Lots of people who have seen this are completely shocked and talking about it.
I just don’t have any logical explanation for this complete slip in behaviour. Of course it might be the case that there has more recently been better behaviour and restraint observed due to the re-election of Council Leadership coming in, but now safely back in the leadership spot perhaps showing off a usual more assertive and forceful style of leadership. 1 year on the clock with no challenges means easier to do as you please.
Just watched the whole incident on the webcast. Clr Jones held his ground well and respectfully, Clr King also comes across well. Clr Pritchard comes across as angry & livid & unhinged as described in the original article. Then there’s Clr Atkinson, allegedly he was getting increasingly angry except sounding completely emotionless about the entire thing then tries to score points with the Establishment Leader & score a cheap shot against a Plaid councillor whom he has received much criticism from in the past, so is only speaking out of personal beef, rather than actually being offended by the suggestion.
For what it’s worth I think the new Mayor was able to chair the whole thing pretty well – nobody told him he’d be dealing with children.
I think it reflects incredibly bad on the Leader of the Council (newly re-elected) that he can’t contain his temper or allow others to put their points of view across without interruption.
Some of his sound-bites are incredible. It’s all I, I, I as if there is no democracy in place and other elected members of the council don’t have any authority or say.
I am not going to let him stand and say this is a PR stunt. I am calling a point of order, I think the elected member is a disgrace and should sit down.”
“As leader of the council I am not going to accept it Mr Mayor”.
“I am trying to be fair here and dignified, when really I am furious.”
It most certainly isn’t about just Clr Pritchard, and leader or not he has no right to shout over other perfectly valid opinions in the chamber. The reality is, if he hadn’t bitten and Clr Jones’ amendment had been quietly defeated (would have happened) then most people wouldn’t even be aware of the issue, but now the spat has acted like a lightning rod and the whole county will have their tuppence to add to the validity of having an RAF celebration vs Homeless Veterans.
You now have to ask in these times of austerity an even more pressing point that £1,000 was an arbitrary figure pulled out to allocate funds to, but:
Cllr Griffiths clarified that the £1000 budget in the report was indicative and no firm figures or plans for any events had been made.
This effectively means that even though the vote was passed, several thousands of pounds could be assigned to such celebrations as they’ve effectively been given a blank cheque. Very difficult to justify when there are cuts going round everywhere else. There are still loads of places across the county that are overgrown and they’ve not got round to cutting the grass, getting rid of weeds and cutting back hedgerows, likewise the pothole problem is still spiralling out of control. Those are just the aesthetic issues. As it stands anyone in the RAF might want to fly right past rather than visit our town until it gets sorted out.
It’s all just 1 great big merry-go-round of farce.
[quote quote=149468]Not hearsay are you stupid? The ” mate from school” is one of those on the streets who begs! !!!!
And you know damned well I said “If they are littering, begging, dealing ”
Tell you what, you go and offer one of them a room or sofa in your house!
Somehow don’t think you will lol
Janey[/quote]
Here we go.
Hearsay – information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
You posting it on an internet forum makes it hearsay. I’m fully aware that the mate from school is one of those on the streets who begs. However, considering how much you slag off beggars, I very much doubt they’d want to be your friend for much longer.
Also, can you tell me this, if you think that beggars, steal, litter, deal drugs and are so bad they should be thrown out of town, it is very curious that you would choose to believe what someone that has such an unreliable character would have to say and you would not consider perhaps they could be lying? Perhaps you choose to believe the statement because it is something that conveniently fits your negative prejudicial narrative of the situation?
Stupid – nice Ad Hominem.
Offering Rooms and Sofas – Straw Man.
[quote quote=149464]You can hardly blame them. Pie & Chips combined with drugged up beggars isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.[/quote]
Pie & Chips, Drugs, Beggars, Cup of Tea. That’s a typical Crewe match-day isn’t it?
[quote quote=149458]I’ve heard them telling each other how much money they can make and know one from school who has confirmed the amounts they can beg on a daily basis actually. So yep!, from the horses mouth!
I also know a few of them have been done for drug dealing and know for a fact they deal as I have seen them dealing to teens in the bus station.
You know exactly what I mean about them looking hungry so stop trying to be sarcastic because you failed miserably.
Not all are Wrexham born and bred, lots come in from other areas. And yes!, even if they are Wrexham residents, if they are littering, begging, dealing in drugs, throw them out of the town!!!
Janey[/quote]
Okay so this is just gossip and hearsay. A mate from school. A sarcasm failure would be if you had failed to detect the ironic statement & took it at face value.
So you now want to throw residents out of town for littering? So that’s everyone who gets caught out with Kingdom fines. Instant ejection from Wrexham.
I am loving this thread. Please continue telling us more.
