Sunday 2 March 2014

UNLAWFUL COUNCIL MEETINGS. POST 3.


We would like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

UNLAWFUL COUNCIL MEETINGS. POST 3.

POSTED BY KENNETH LYONS.

WHY WE BELIEVE THE 10TH OCTOBER COUNCIL MEETING TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL

We had taken note of when the Council posted its Notice and Agenda for upcoming Council meetings for some months, just to be sure we were in fact correct that the Council was failing to give the required 3 days minimum notice and to confirm it wasn’t simply a ‘one off’.

Photographs were taken of the Parish Notice Board in Preston North during the evening of Friday 5th October  (Notice had to be posted before midnight on friday 5th October) and again shortly after midnight on Saturday 6th October, those photographs are date and time stamped. We know that time and date stamps can be manipulated so in order to avoid an accusation of dishonesty, we waited until the first editions of the newspapers were available later on the Saturday morning.

We purchased a Saturday edition of the Daily Mirror at approx 6:15am on Saturday 6th October. When we returned to the Preston Parish Notice Board there was still no agenda and notice of the Council meeting posted. We took photographs of the Parish Notice Board with the Saturday newspaper clearly visible showing that at that time the Notice of Meeting had not yet been posted. The photographs shown were taken at 06:30am, 07:56 and 08:44am further photographs were taken showing the Notice had not been posted up to that point. We returned to the Notice Board at approx. 10:05am the same morning to find the Notice had by then been posted.

My understanding is that the National Newspapers are finalised and printed overnight and the Saturday Edition is certainly not available for purchase the day before its printed. So we can be certain the Notice of Meeting was not posted before midnight on Friday, it was posted between 08:44am and 10:05 am on Saturday 06th October 2012. The day the notice is posted cannot be counted as part of the minimum 3 days notice giving only 2 clear days Notice of the meeting, Monday and Tuesday.


This isn’t missing the deadline by just a few minutes because of traffic it represents a blatant disregard to the legal processes and procedures the Parish Council is required to abide by.


Saturday morning edition of the Daily Mirror used in photographs, dated Saturday 06th October 2012. The paper was purchased at 06:15am from the Newsagents in Hedon.

At the time the Photographs were taken, in the early hours of 6th October 2012 the Notice Board contained the following posters.

Right hand side.
1.  Preston Community Hall.
2.  List of Councillors for North and South Preston.
3.  Vacancy for a councillor.
4.  Notice of Audit and Annual Return.

Left hand side.
1.  Neighbourhood team of Police Officers.
2.  Family information and fun days.
3. Preston Walkers.

When the Notice of Meeting was eventually posted it was posted in the lower right hand side, replacing or covering the notice of a vacancy for a Parish Councillor, next to the Audit and Annual Return Notice and below the list of Parish Councillors.

The newspaper mounted on top of the Parish Notice Board showing the Notice of Agenda and Meeting had not yet been posted. Taken at 06:28:40am on Saturday 6th October 2012. 

Photo taken at 07:56:41am Saturday 6th October 2012. Still no ‘Notice’.

Photograph taken at 08:44:26. Still no Notice of Council Meeting.

 Parish Notice Board with Notice of Meeting posted in the right lower corner of the Notice Board, taken on Saturday 6th October 2012 at 10:04:39. The Notice has either replaced or is covering the notice of ‘Vacancy for a Councillor’.

This process was followed for some months prior to October 2012, after we realised what was in fact taking place. Without some degree of prove the Council would simply have lied and denied it and started to post the Notices in time and no one would have been any the wiser.

Its abundantly clear to us that the 10th October 2012 Council Meeting was indeed illegal, the council therefore had no legal authority to conduct any Council business let alone co-opt a new Councillor. This was not the first or only time co-options have taken place during unlawfully convened Council Meetings.

It is not acceptable for the Council to constantly react to residents and correct the faults in procedure only when residents find them out.  This situation was brought to the Councils attention in October 2012 and the Council now post the Notice of Council meeting giving the required notice. If it hadn’t been brought to the Council’s attention the practice would still be continuing to day and with another co-option in the making we could easily have 3 or 4 members of the public sitting as Parish Councillors.


If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.


2 comments:

  1. Amazing how the only comments are from the same person ! member of your group by anychance ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reply to Anonymous.

      We don’t really understand the point of your comment, there has been almost 300 comments, are you suggesting they are all from the same person? Or are you suggesting the comments on recent posts are from the same person? If it is the later, yes the last 3 comments prior to yours are from the same person, we have confirmed the identity of that person and are currently discussing an issue by email.

      Maybe your suggesting we shouldn’t allow a person to comment more than once, wouldn’t that be just a little silly? Wouldn’t you then say we’re not publishing comments and being selective?

      Maybe if the comments were anonymous as your comment is, maybe you would suggest they’re all figments of our imagination. The point we’re trying to make is that your comment doesn’t really make any sense to us.

      Maybe you would like to put something to us with a little more detail, and with a little more clarity and in your own name, you could always email us. We’re pretty sure readers would like to know who you are and what point your actually trying to make.

      Your last point is easily answered, no the commenter is not a member of our small group, but it does look as if he may be very soon, in which case we will not accept comments from him unless he makes his affiliation known.

      There has been a number of comments to some recent posts, anonymously, which we have not published. We have already made readers aware of that so we consider our hands to be clean.

      Thank you for your comment Anonymous, we hope this response goes some way to answering you and thank you for reading.

      The Team
      PPCP

      Delete