MorleyGate

The Town Council Annual Report 2010-2011

2011-11-06T20:07:00.002Z

After much delay, the Town Council has finally posted the 2011 annual report. So how did they solve the conundrum of the missing figures in 2010? by simply leaving out last year's figures completely!

Of course, now that an opening balance has been published, it is a simple matter to fill in the blanks...

So, I finally got round to writing to the Information Commissioner...

2011-07-22T16:57:00.000Z

Having exhausted the Town Council's processes, I wish to refer this case to yourselves.

A supporting document was omitted from a Council Meeting Agenda Pack lodged in the local library (and was not available for members of the public at the meeting).

I requested a copy and was advised that I could see it during the accounts inspection window at a later date. I considered this to be unsatisfactory as the inspection opportunity commenced on a date later than the response deadline and it would of course involve considerable inconvienience to myself, including loss of annual leave time.

I referred the matter for internal review and was advised that the review panel considered the document as draft and therefore not for public circulation (despite being presented at a full open Council meeting without exclusion of the public).

I attach your standard form and a screen scrape of the correspondence- it can also be found at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/missing_agm_document_in_library#incoming-195035

Thank you,
Ian Grey

More unlawful behaviour

2010-10-22T06:44:00.000Z

I have sent a maladministration complaint to Morley Town Council.

When Councillor Bradley died on September 30th, in law, this created a casual vacancy on the Council. It was then obliged to post up a notification, advising electors that there would be a co-option to fill the vacancy unless ten electors petitioned for a Poll. Had there been less than six months before the election, a petition would not have been possible and it would be optional whether the Town Council chose to co-opt someone or not.

However, Cllr Bradley died seven months and a few days before the May 2010 elections.

The statutory notice has to be displayed for 14 working days. This expired on Wednesday so the opportunity for voters to ask for a bye-election is no longer possible. The Council failed to comply with its legal obligations and has therefore acted unlawfully.

Statutes: LGA 1972 LGA 1972 SI2006/3305

Publish... and be damned?

2010-10-07T10:38:00.001Z

The letter to the YEP was published yesterday with the above amusing caption. It isn't online so here is a snapshot-

Interestingly, yesterday evening I received an email from a well known Morleian who said that he had written to the Morley Obtiser on the same subject a while back but that it wasn't published...

Widening the net

2010-10-01T19:01:00.002Z

As the Morley local paper continue to ignore anything not supportive of the ruling Junta, I have sent the following letter to the Yorkshire Evening Post.

When Morley Town Council published their 2009/2010 Annual report with a censored financial statement recently, I sat up and took notice. A balance sheet without a balance? Outrageous!

Local Governments are meant to be open and transparent- after all it is our money they are spending. They don't come cheap either- in the last six years Morleians have been forced to pay over a Million Pounds to run our Parish. (If you don't believe it involves force, try withholding your Council Tax.)

To refuse to print how much they spent last year and how much they had left is arrogance of the highest order. We hope they spend our hard earned money wisely but how can we know that if they won't tell us? The excuses used about "confidentially issues" were entirely unjustifiable and a smokescreen to conceal their incompetence, something that has backfired spectacularly.

Morley Town Council's actions are an insult to all precept payers of Morley. The Councillors who voted to accept the Annual Report should hang their heads in shame.

Ian Grey

(Former Morley Town Councillor 2004-2007)

The simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play

2010-09-22T22:47:00.000Z

http://www.magforum.com/notprivateeye.htm

Our local fourth estate doesn't seem overly interested in opposing views to the ruling Town Council Junta.

I wrote a strong letter to the 'tiser two weekends ago. It didn't appear last week but they assured me it had been received and referred to the boss.

Today, it didn't appear either so I can only assume it has been spiked. It was under the 350 word limit and I gave my address (but not my daytime phone number, which they could have emailed me for). There are four letters today- one about veg growers, one about thanking a Pub for a raffle and two from Chuggers.

Oh- and a column from Ed Balls MP talking about the chiiiiildren.

I seem to remember a few others mentioning that letters critical of the Mimbys never quite seem to make it into the paper these days (since Bob Evans retired) or if they do, they get heavily watered down.

Are we seeing a pattern emerging here?

Whoops! It seems that no-one has done an FOI appeal before

2010-09-18T09:55:00.000Z

Perhaps it might be worth going to the next full Council meeting after all.

The dialogue with the auditor

2010-09-17T18:04:00.000Z

Here is the reply received from Mazars:

Thank you for your email of 14 September 2010.

The first point I should make is that our audit opinion on the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2010 was issued on 2 August 2010 and the audit is now closed. Consequently, I have no powers to consider any matters relating to that audit year. However, to be helpful to you, I would make the following brief comments on the matters you have raised (your numbering).

Point 1: I believe that the document you are referring to is an income and expenditure account included within the Council’s Annual Report - not the Annual Return which constitutes the ‘statutory accounts’ that were subject to audit. We were informed by the Council that it intended to redact certain information in its Annual Report. I understand that this decision was in response to a ruling by an employment tribunal judge that an amount of compensation paid to a former clerk of the Town Council was subject to a confidentiality agreement and that the Council was seeking to ensure it was able to comply with this ruling. It is not the role of the external auditor to provide formal advice to the Council on any action it takes and we did not do so in this instance.

Point 5: This is covered by response to Point 1.

Point 7: It is for the Council to determine what information is made available to members of the public who choose to exercise their rights under s15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. Issues relating to the exercise of electors’ rights are a matter between the Council and those wishing to inspect the accounts. If someone has a concern that they are not given access to information that they consider they were entitled to see, their recourse is to complain to the Council and, ultimately, to make a challenge through the Courts.

Point 8: This is not a matter for us to comment on, other than to confirm that no matters were raised with us by members of the public in relation to our audit of the accounts.

Following paragraphs: I have no further comment to make on the inspection process. From my review, I am satisfied that the Council provided us with all of the information required to enable us to undertake our audit and to issue our audit opinion. The compensation payment to the former clerk was in relation to their employment (i.e. ceasing to hold office) and, as such, I am satisfied that it was appropriate to include this payment within the staff costs heading.

Thank you for raising these matters with me. As I stated at the outset, I have given these comments in order to be helpful;. However, given that the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2010 are now closed, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

A thorough response, but I felt that there were a couple of points that needed clarifying.

Thank you for your thorough and informative reply. It is indeed helpful, which has not been the case with the Council, who have been obstructive.

Thank you for the reassurances about the correct posting of settlements. It just seemed counter-intuitive to me based on the descriptive wording for box four on the return which is in present tense only.

Your comments on the queries made by Council and your entirely appropriate responses are noted. However, you express the view that the confidentiality agreement was based on a tribunal judge ruling. I believe this to be incorrect, because as far as I am aware, no financial ruling had been made, the agreement was made "out of court" before the award proceedings took place which is the obvious time to apply such a ruling (which would be highly unusual in any case). On this basis, I believe that Mazars either jumped to conclusions or were misled. I will look further into this with the Tribunals Service.

You will have noted that there were gaps in the sequence of questions. The other questions (which I omitted for clarity) were seeking clarification about the origin of the confidentiality agreement, which the Council has declined to answer (or more accurately, provided an evasive answer to). This is ongoing.

Now none of the above needs to particularly concern yourselves as external auditors, as it isn't really audit related, as you say. However the matter of the pre-inspection report process surely must do, especially if procedural irregularities are subsequently discovered. If it is not yourselves then the responsibility must lie with the Audit Commission, it shouldn't be up to concerned citizens to pursue local authorities through the courts.

I perfectly understand the idea about withholding access to specific items of financial transactions where appropriate but it is the actual Pre Audit annual return form that the Council have admitted (through gritted teeth) would have been redacted, i.e. box 7 closing balance. It is unequivocal that this would have been unlawful and I find it odd that you would play down such a matter. During the inspection window, the Annual report had not even been published so it would be dis-ingenious of the Council to claim that they had misunderstood the question. If the method of redaction had been to leave those boxes blank at inspection, then by filling them in after the inspection window that would have been altering the return which is also unlawful without permission of yourselves.

One other (comparatively minor) point I would like to draw to your attention- The annual return notice of conclusion that was displayed recently was incomplete: it did not have box f completed, "Date of announcement". As the external auditor, I would expect Mazars to point out the necessity to fill in statutory forms correctly in subsequent years

Anyway, thank you once again for your co-operation. If my understanding of ACA1998 S14 and SI 2003/533-2006/564 is wanting in any of the above, feel free to correct me.

However, he was not prepared to be drawn.

Dear Mr Grey

I acknowledge receipt of your email.

I refer you to the response I gave in my previous email. I consider the matter to be closed and do not intend to enter into any further correspondence.

Yours sincerely

Mazars speak out

2010-09-15T23:43:00.000Z

I've received a lengthly reply from Mazers, the external auditors for the Town Council. They have gone out of their way to be helpful as they could have just given me short shrift, with the accounts being closed and all.

I just want to clarify some subtle detail, but to summarise, my interpretation is that they have distanced themselves from the actions of the Town Council.

With a bargepole.

Meanwhile, the story isn't just confined to this blog and has propagated somewhat over the blogosphere. See here, here, here and here.

Not forgetting here as well.

Our two week opportunity

2010-09-14T23:01:00.001Z

Here are the audited accounts posted in public view. Spot the error...

Can you tell what it is yet?

Hidden in plain view

2010-09-13T20:06:00.000Z

Email sent to the MTC auditors, copied to MTC & the Audit Commission

Dear Mr. Christopher,

Whilst I have not heard from yourselves in connection with my original enquiry about Morley Town Council redacting financial figures from the annual report (although you were copied in on two emails from the audit commission), I have received a number of replies to questions from the Town Clerk which do not reflect Mazars in a good light.

The relevant questions asked and responses received are as follows:
-----------------

1) The balance sheet in the recently published annual report does not show a closing balance. MTC presumably sought advice on this. Which body advised that it was legal to redact the closing balance and what did they say?

The external auditors, Mazars LLP, were consulted verbally on this point.
------------------

5) Have Mazers been consulted in the matter of redacting the Annual Report Balance Sheet? If so, what was their expressed opinion?

See answer to question 1 above.

----------------

7) Had I have visited the office during the pre-audit accounts inspection window up until July 28th, would I have found that the closing balance was redacted?

Yes.
----------------

8) Did any electors or interested parties inspect the accounts during the July 2010 inspection window?

I do not see relevance in this question
---------------

The replies were under FOI and the answers are highly unhelpful (and now subject to the Council complaints procedure as I do not consider them acceptable answers). However, taking the answers at face value the implication is that Mazars have concurred with the Council (or suggested a course of action) in order to obfuscate the accounts and that callers wishing to inspect them would have been denied access to the pre-audit balance sheet, an unlawful act. Similarly, if the figures were omitted in the return during the inspection window, then the Town Council writing them in before sending them on to yourselves for audit would also be an unlawful act. Some clarity on this matter would be welcomed.

On a seperate, more practical note, it would appear from the audited figures that an undisclosed sum for the former Town Clerk who won a tribunal case has been posted into the staff costs box of the return, which is nearly £30k higher than 2008 and 2009. I would not regard a settlement figure for a compromise agreement with a former employee (who resigned in 2007) post-tribunal judgement but pre-tribunal award would qualify as staff costs at all, nor any associated legal fees. The sums would surely be an extraordinary one-off payment within general expenses. Please consider this and offer a determination as to whether the accounts have been correctly submitted or not.

I hasten to add that the post- audit procedure was followed to the letter- the signed off accounts and inspection notice were posted in a public place for the statutory 14 days. However, in a spirit of (lack of) openness, the actual return was positioned behind the dirtiest, most smudged, most smeared, most residually sellotaped part of the Town Council noticeboard. I think the term is hidden in plain view...

Regards,

Ian Grey
Elector, Morley Parish.

Unhappy with FOI responses

2010-09-13T11:22:00.002Z

Morley Town Council,

FAO Town Clerk

Response to Freedom of Information request dated 9/9/2020

(sent by email and 2^nd class post)

I wish to invoke the formal complaint procedure regarding the response to my FOI request of August 15^th 2010.

The answers given in the letter of 9/9/2010 are generally uninformative, unhelpful and obstructive. Some questions are only partially answered and others not at all.

The purpose of the Freedom of Information act is to prevent the public sector unnecessarily hiding information from electors and to encourage transparency. If this is the standard approach Morley Town Council takes to FOI requests then it is a flippant approach which I regard as inappropriate.

There also seems to be some confusion about asking questions of Morley Town Council and the Town Clerk personally as some of the answers are given based on what the Town Clerk knows rather than the collective decisions of Council.

I reiterate that my questions are to the Town Council through the auspices of the Town Clerk.

I am unclear as to why the last question was avoided by reference to not understanding the relevance: It is not for the Town Clerk to judge this and I could have been approached for clarification but the last sentence of the letter is dismissive . The question is clear enough- There is a statutory window of opportunity for inspection of the pre-audited accounts and I wish to know if anyone exercised their right to do this. The answer is particularly relevant given the answer to question 7 as this would mean that the Council may have acted unlawfully.

I have heard informally from others that they have also been disappointed with answers to FOI questions. On that basis I have submitted a separate FOI request via a public resource www.whatdotheyknow.com.

I am also disappointed that the response was sent on the 19^th working day by 1^st class post when it could easily have been sent earlier by 2^nd class post. (Or even emailed).

Please advise on the process and timescales for assessing my complaint.

Yours Sincerely,

Ian Grey

Elector, Topcliffe Ward

Letter to the Editor

2010-09-13T00:21:00.000Z

The following has been emailed to the Morley Observer and Advertiser, otherwise known as the 'Tiser

As a previous Member of Morley Town Council, I have observed the various goings on at the Town Hall over the last three years with a rather jaded, cynical eye. However, when the current Council published their 2009/2010 Annual report with a censored financial statement, I sat up and took notice. A balance sheet without a balance? Outrageous!

Local Governments are meant to be open and transparent- after all it is our money they are spending. They don't come cheap either- in the last six years we have been forced to pay over a Million Pounds to run our Parish. (If you don't believe we are forced, try witholding your Council Tax.) Are we getting value for money?

It was possible to work out the redacted numbers when they published the audited accounts, a statutory obligation. However, replies to a Freedom of Information request suggest that they may possibly have potentially acted illegally in their merry financial dance to hide from us what they had really done. (This matter is ongoing with the auditors).

So, to refuse to print how much they spent last year and how much they had left is arrogance of the highest order. We hope they spend our hard earned money wisely but how can we know that if they won't tell us? The excuses used about "confidentially issues" were entirely unjustifiable.

Just to add further insult to injury, the FOI questions I raised (by email) were answered in what could best be described as an unhelpful way and will be subject to the complaints procedure. They even wasted 9p by waiting until the last possible reply date then franking the letter First Class post. I have now heard about three others who have also been treated in this way and I do not consider it acceptable to fob people off with non-answers.

Morley Town Council's actions are an insult to all precept payers of Morley and the Councillors who voted to accept the Annual Report should hang their heads in shame.

MTC wasting our money

2010-09-12T16:08:00.001Z

Well, it was only 7p, but...

I notice that the FOI letter back from the Town Clerk is franked for 36p, so the response was sent first class on the 19th working day to ensure I got answers by the 20th working day (which is the statutory response).

Now they obviously could have answered this a fortnight ago and sent it to me for 29p second class (or even emailed it to me for no postage cost).

It is not even as if they can claim to have had to research the answers to the questions. I can only assume that they have a policy of stalling until the last minute...

Answers from Morley Town Council

2010-09-11T17:13:00.000Z

Replies to my eight questions received in the post yesterday. I have interspersed the questions for clarity, as the reply letter just listed the answers. I've also commented in red italics.

The external auditors, Mazars LLP, were consulted verbally on this point.

Yes, but what did they say? It might have been "We don't recommend it, but you could just leave it out of the annual report as it isn't a statutory obligation".

2) The annual report claims reasons of confidentiality for redacting 2010 general administration, total expenditure and closing balance. Is this related purely to the out of court settlement with K Barrett after losing the Employment tribunal in March 2009?

The redaction of figures in the Annual Report is related to the compensation award made to Mrs K Barrett.

That was straight forward enough, but the word "solely" is not included so it is still open to interpretation.

3) which party proposed that the out of court settlement be on a confidential basis- the Morley Town Council Barrister or the Solicitor representing K Barrett?

As I was not in attendance at the conclusion of the Employment Tribunal, I cannot answer this question.

But I'm not asking the Town Clerk, I'm asking Morley Town Council via the Town Clerk. The Town Clerk doesn't make decisions but is expected to record them.

4) If it was MTC that proposed confidentiality in the out of court settlement, what was the justification for doing so?

See answer to question 3 above.

See comment after answer 3 above!

5) Have Mazers been consulted in the matter of redacting the Annual Report Balance Sheet? If so, what was their expressed opinion?

See answer to question 1 above.

...and my corresponding comment!

6) Will the closing balance be redacted in the audited reports available later this year?

The complete Annual Return was displayed on the Town Council notice board between Friday, 20th August and Friday 3rd September.

Indeed it was, next to the censored Annual Report. The annual report remains, but for two weeks, Morleians were able to work out the figures.

7) Had I have visited the office during the pre-audit accounts inspection window up until July 28th, would I have found that the closing balance was redacted?

Yes.

Interesting, that would have been breaking the law.

8) Did any electors or interested parties inspect the accounts during the July 2010 inspection window?

I do not see relevance in this question.

You haven't answered it either.

Hidden in plain view

2010-08-20T00:04:00.000Z

What Morley Town Council Censored in the 2009-2010 annual report:

(2009 figure in brackets)

General Administration £107,204 (£85,877)

Total expenditure £190,630 (£169,107)

Balance as at 31st March £78,623 (£91,660)

(Accurate to within £1 due to rounding- the audit opening balance was £1 less than the annual report opening balance).

This information is in the public domain and "confidentiality issues" is MTC being what a friend of mine described as being... err... shifty.

Where did I track it down? In Morley Library, in a locked filing cabinet with a sign saying "Beware of the leopard"

(Not quite that bad, but two green box files were locked away somewhere upstairs and a helpful Librarian went and fetched them after consulting with someone behind the scenes).

In the box amongst a somewhat jumbled assortment of old Agendas, Minutes & Annual reports, there was the 2009/2010 internal audit report for acceptance at the May Annual general meeting. (I assume they did, the July Agenda with May Minutes hadn't made it to the filing yet).

Reverse engineering the figures once the closing balance is known is of course child's play. The arrogance shown by the Council that those of us who are actually forced to pay 99.9% of the income are not allowed to know the expenditure unless we went to the AGM is nothing short of astonishing.

The question remains, though, as to whether those figures were available for inspection during July, or if they were censored to visitors. (If there were any).

The balance sheet figures in the annual report are presented in a different way to the figures the Audit Commission wants. (e.g. the audit commission aren't interested in which committee spends what).

They do ask for staff costs to be separated out though, and they define staff costs as:-

"Total expenditure or payments made to and on behalf of all employees. Include salaries and wages, PAYE and NI (employees and employers), pension contributions and employment expenses".

The figures for the last three years are:

2008 £53,275
2009 £51,986
2010 £81,404

(The first two figures were published on the town hall noticeboard last year when the internal audit figures were posted alongside the statutory notice of accounts inspection. This year, only the statutory notice was posted, not the internal audit figures. I suspect this is redaction by accidental on purpose oversight, i.e. plausible deniability).

This year has leapt up without any obvious change of staffing in the Town Council office. I also don't see how a compromise settlement with a former employee after losing a tribunal judgement fits in with the definition of Staff costs above.

Let us see if Mazers agree...

The Audit Commission speaks

2010-08-16T19:04:00.000Z

Thank you for your email to the Audit Commission regarding the 2009/10 accounts of Morley Town Council as presented in that council’s Annual Report published online.

I must stress that the accounts presented on the council’s website as part of the Annual Report are not the statutory accounts of the council. The annual report is not a statutory requirement and so is not regulated. One would hope, however, that any financial information presented in an annual report would be both complete and consistent with the audited statutory accounts of the body.

The council’s statutory accounts come in the form of an Annual Return which is subject to independent external audit. The council must publicly display the annual return, which includes both accounting and annual governance statements, for 20 working days. During that time you may ask the council any question you like about the accounts or to see any detail of them. There is certainly nothing in the legislation that supports partial disclosures of income or expenditure in the Annual Return and it is, indeed, unusual. So presuming the council’s annual return is complete, you should be able to find the information you seek there.

Local electors have rights in relation to the accounting statements. These include the right ‘to inspect the accounts…and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them.’ You may find the Commission’s guide – Councils Accounts Your Rights – helpful in detailing your rights and how to use them. It is accessible at http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/nationalstudies/localgov/Pages/councilsaccountsyourrights03072006.aspx .

In case of access to potentially personal information which is protected, you can also ask the external auditor (see directory at http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/aboutus/contactus/Pages/ourauditors.aspx to find your local auditor) to determine whether the information you seek is personal information or not.

You may also request to see the information you seek through your rights under Freedom of Information legislation.

I am copying this response to your council’s appointed auditor and to Morley Town Council for information.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Questions to Morley Town Council

2010-08-14T22:30:00.000Z

Eight questions sent to the Town Clerk under FOI today:-

1) The balance sheet in the recently published annual report does not show a closing balance. MTC presumably sought advice on this. Which body advised that it was legal to redact the closing balance and what did they say?

2) The annual report claims reasons of confidentiality for redacting 2010 general administration, total expenditure and closing balance. Is this related purely to the out of court settlement with K Barrett after losing the Employment tribunal in March 2009?

3) which party proposed that the out of court settlement be on a confidential basis- the Morley Town Council Barrister or the Solicitor representing K Barrett?

4) If it was MTC that proposed confidentiality in the out of court settlement, what was the justification for doing so?

5) Have Mazers been consulted in the matter of redacting the Annual Report Balance Sheet? If so, what was their expressed opinion?

6) Will the closing balance be redacted in the audited reports available later this year?

7) Had I have visited the office during the pre-audit accounts inspection window up until July 28th, would I have found that the closing balance was redacted?

8) Did any electors or interested parties inspect the accounts during the July 2010 inspection window?

Check back in twenty working days to see how I got on...

Where has all the money gone?

2010-08-14T12:38:00.002Z

The latest piece of insanity from Morley Town Council is to publish the annual accounts balance sheet in the annual report- WITHOUT A BALANCE.

I can't see Mazars being impressed with that and await the audited accounts with interest...

*edit* I couldn't wait, see the post above.

All shall have prizes

2010-04-29T20:17:00.004Z

Morley Town Council have decided that past Town Mayors should be given a commemorative badge to reward their contribution (in addition to their name on the past Mayors board and their photograph in the Council Chamber).

£1,000 has been allocated from the 2010 budget for this honour. Needless to say, some electors think this is a bad idea and feelings were high at the Town Meeting last night.

Michael Gomersal writes on Facebook:

I wrote a letter to the Observer last week and included copies of minutes which made reference to the past mayor's badges. They didn't print it so i'll post it here so all is not lost.

"Could a member of the Morley Borough Independent's Party please explain why, during such difficult economic times it is necessary to spend £1000 of tax payer's money on "Past Mayor's Badges".

The funding of Ten "Past Mayor's Badges" at £100 each was finally approved by the Finance and General Purposes Committee in November 2009 following over a year of discussions of which Cllr. Derek Bradley was a driving force.

As a resident of Morley I feel the money we pay to Morley Town Council could be much better spent on things such as school projects or help for the elderly instead of ten "Past Mayor's Badges" which will be of no benefit to the community at all.

I have always being a supporter of the Morley Borough Independent's but such spending at a time when many families are experiencing great hardship as forced me to re-consider my position at the forth coming elections."

I'm going to tweak it a little and send it to the YEP. Maybe I will have more luck there.

The reaction by the Councillors to being challenged was defensive and hostile:- they regarded it as worthy because the Town Mayors work so hard. Borough Mayors pre-1974 used to get one and it wasn't a large sum of money in the scheme of things. One Councillor told the person who raised the issue that he should be ashamed. Another one told me afterwards that if I didn't like paying the Precept that I should move somewhere else.

Morley Town Council is stuck in a bubble of make-believe pomp and circumstance that makes do-gooders & busybodies feel important about themselves whilst most Morleians are somewhat indifferent to it, especially as the £175,000 running costs are tucked away in the domestic rates bill.

Redaction in action

2009-06-19T19:02:00.004Z

Redaction is in the Press a lot at the moment with the censored publication of MP expenses. As well as the removal of sensitive information, it can also be a form of editing.

The Morley Obtiser often edits letters to the editor for reasons unstated. Often it is to add clarity or for brevity; sometimes it is to avoid sensitive or controversial subjects.

This letter written by former independent Leeds City Councillor Stewart McArdle was published on Wednesday 17th June, however the Editor omitted what Stewart considered to be the most revealing and damaging part of the letter. The paragraphs omitted are shown in bold.

The recent spate of letters concerning the Annual Meeting of Morley Town Council and there being only three members of the public in attendance deserve some further comment. This may infer a number of things; such as that, members of the electorate have no interest in it, nor its relevance, or even may object to paying the precept!

Of course, Mr. Bywater is presuming there will be a town council by the time of the next all-out elections in 2011. By this I mean that the legal case/tribunal of the former town clerk versus Morley Town Council has yet to be resolved as the council has collectively decided to contest the decision made against them by an Independent Panel. So there is a strong likelihood that more money will be incurred in further legal costs with the legal profession being the only winner.

Latest figures released for expenditure are attributed to the civic year 2007/8 and show a rise of £47,000 against the coding of General Administration. This is not broken down but, in all probability a significant amount is due to legal costs. I also understand that the reserves of Morley Town Council diminished by almost £34,000 and added together, is a significant portion of the Annual Budget and more importantly, your precept money.

The former town clerk did not leave the post until Christmas 2007 so that is an awful lot to spend on legal costs in twelve weeks but, everyone knows that barristers do not come cheap!

As the tribunal did not take place till October 2008, the figures for 2008/9 should make interesting reading when released. Will there be enough in the council pot by then?

Yours sincerely

via e-mail

Stewart McArdle

How long does it take to read a file?

2009-05-16T11:55:00.007Z

10 months, according to the CPS, who have finally decided that Walter Volks "will not be prosecuted over allegations of electoral malpractice"

The story is here (http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-councillor-will-not-be.5271531.jp) and here (http://www.morleyobserver.co.uk/news/Morley-councillor-cleared-of-breaching.5272680.jp)

May I make a few observations?

"Coun Finnigan said today: "I am delighted that these entirely bogus allegations have been dumped"

It took 10 months of investigation to decide there is "insufficient evidence to prosecute" these "entirely bogus allegations". Hmmm.

Plus of course, as sure as the Moon rises, we are treated to the inevitable "malicious", "spiteful", "vicious" and "political axe to grind" tirade.

However, maybe this should be pointed out;

People seem to be concentrating on the address aspect, which although it is unusual - apparently he is still on the electoral roll in Morley, although admitting to the YEP he doesn't actually live here. Which means he is able to:

vote for Morley's political representatives even though by his own admission he doesn't actually live in the area.
be eligible to stand for LCC next time around (you are eligible if you are registered to vote in the area or if you have lived, had as your main or principle place of work, or owned property in the area for at least 12 months before an election.) [my highlights]
meet the qualifications to be a town councillor, as one has to, at least, live within 3 miles of the town council boundary to be eligible to stand. And I suspect that Liversedge is very much on the cusp of that. Either way, a local address looks much better on the ballot paper, even if it is the registered HQ of a local political party

However, this all misses the fact that Walter claimed eligibility to stand in the election, and has said as much to the press, by ticking the box against the work criteria conditions.

Now it is all very well stating that he was no longer employed by Kirklees council when he signed his nomination papers in April 2008 - but he only left there in March 2008 after being charged with Gross Misconduct by his employers (again, this was in the local press)

So, was he was cheating his employers ("gross misconduct"?) or has the decision been based on on the amount of brass he has received from both councils, or has he managed to produce timesheets accounting for how much time outside work he has spent being an LCC councillor? Or is there some other reason, in which case I'm sure we would be grateful to know.

Anyway, IMHO;

It stinks.

Pumpkingate

2009-03-03T21:41:00.004Z

It seems that our Morley Borough Independents just can't keep out of the papers, although probably not for the reasons they would like. Today's Yorkshire Evening Post has a front page story about Morley's Deputy Mayor, accused of stealing a Pinata..

Meanwhile, we wait further news of the former Town Clerk's successful case for unfair dismissal, what compensation she will receive and the acid test- whether she gets awarded costs. (YEP story here).

The forthcoming Leeds Mayormaking will be a stormy night, Cllr Finnigan explains why Labour aren't happy.

It has all gone quiet on the Walter Volks affair, the Crown Prosecution Service still don't appear to have made their mind up. Faster than a speeding snail...

What's the story with Morley Town Council?

2009-03-01T12:42:00.001Z

Last week, the Yorkshire Post reported that the former clerk to Morley Town Council, which is now 100% controlled by the Morley Borough Independent political party (they do not let the sole opposition councillor sit on committees) had won a tribunal case of constructive dismissal against the council.

This report, in my opinion, concentrated on the pieces of the judgement which the town councillors would prefer to be highlighted, namely that the tribunal could find no evidence of bullying or harassment against her.

Now, I declare an interest in this as some of the events occurred while I was on MTC, and chaired the committee which dealt with staffing matters. I understand that since the MBIs took total control, they have established a Staffing sub-committee chaired by one Paul Cook, of whom I had never heard of or had dealings with previously. However, I agreed to be a witness for the clerk based on my recollections of events whilst I was on the council, and my understanding of subsequent ones.

So please bear with me while I state a few facts. I will deal with the tribunal statements in another post later, but as a starter:

In March 2006 I wrote to the then mayor, Brian Judge, and deputy mayor, Robert Gettings. It was rather a lengthy letter so I will not reproduce it in total. But I will reproduce some points:

“I feel I must take the unusual step of writing to the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor to set out some very real concerns I (and I know I am not alone in this) have regarding the conduct and attitude of certain members of Morley Town Council towards an employee of the Council.”

· “My main point concerns the attitude and conduct of three members of the Morley Borough Independent political grouping towards the Town Clerk. You are of course aware that the Town Council is the corporate employer, and as such its employees report to the Council as a whole, not any individual member; but it does seem that these three members have taken a decision, either as individuals or as a “group within a group” , to make the Clerk’s employment terms and conditions, as well as the duties she carries out and the way her time is spent, their personal concern despite the fact that the vast majority of councillors are satisfied with the way the office runs and the support received from our staff.”

· “…but the impression given was that certain members are not satisfied with either committee decisions regarding employment matters unless it coincides with their own agenda, or the service provided by the Town Clerk”

· “What is, of course, really worrying about this incident is that it is the latest in a series reaching back to July last year. In my opinion (and others) it appears increasingly apparent that certain members of this Council are intent on undermining our Town Clerk, although as they have never made their concerns official it is uncertain as to the outcome they would prefer”

· “I am concerned as to the effect the “whispering campaign” and general attitude toward her is having on her health”

· “I am concerned that these people, and more importantly Morley Town Council, could find themselves involved in very negative public action; actions which in my opinion the Council and certain members have been fortunate to avoid in the past when an employee resigned her position – a position the Council was subsequently unable to fill.”

And lastly

· “Action by the Council could clear up any concerns these members may wish to make or merely remind them of the existence of employment tribunals and the Standards Board as referral to these bodies could well be instigated if the current attitude does not cease. Such action would in my opinion bring this Council into disrepute.”

The mayor did indeed set up a meeting to deal with this matter. Bob Gettings did not attend citing illness. It quickly became apparent that my letter, which was marked “PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL” had been shown/ copied to the members concerned in advance. As I said in my statement, I believe Mr Gettings did this.

More later….

Inspecting Local Authority Accounts

2009-02-01T22:08:00.001Z

UPDATE- egg on face for this, the notice correctly confirms a different stage in the audit cycle, i.e. post audit report inspection rather than pre audit inspection. The Town Council have clarified. The inspection window was during August 2008.

My apologies for the confusion. I'll leave the post in-situ as it is still worthwhile being aware of the right to inspect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a little known entitlement for any elector to inspect their local authority accounts, as posted by the PJC Journal last Summer.

Our local Town Council put up the statutory notices earlier in January on their notice board and they were removed at some point last week. Looking at the actual announcement though, it isn't terribly helpful, even allowing for the crayon and the sellotape on the plastic window of the noticeboard. Take a look...

The question is- when are they available for inspection? Monday to Friday, of course, between 9am and Noon. But what dates? It doesn't actually say.

The law does though.

SI 2003/533

Notice of public rights

16. - (1) Not later than 14 days before the commencement of the period during which the accounts and other documents are made available in pursuance of regulation 14, a relevant body to which regulation 11(2) applies, or in the case of a parish meeting, the chairman of the meeting, shall give notice by advertisement of the matters set out in paragraph (2).

(2) The matters referred to in paragraph (1) are -

(a) the period during which the accounts and other documents referred to in paragraph (1) will be available for inspection in accordance with regulation 14;

(b) the place at which, and the hours during which, they will be so available;

(c) the name and address of the auditor;

(d) the provisions contained in section 15 and section 16 of the 1998 Act; and

(e) the date appointed under regulation 13.

(My emphasis)

This document doesn't do that. Indeed it only implies that the public can only inspect the annual return, a somewhat short summary document.

So, this document was dated January 7th, so the books would have opened no less than 14 days later, on the 21st of January.

How long are the books open for inspection? Four weeks.

Public inspection of accounts
14. - (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the relevant body or, as the case may be, the chairman, notified under regulation 13, shall make the accounts and other documents mentioned in section 15 of the 1998 Act available for public inspection for 20 working days before the date appointed by the auditor under that regulation.

That should mean in this case that the books remain open until February 18th.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but I've read through the Act and the two subsequent Statutory Instruments. I don't see that a Parish Council is exempt from full compliance with the inspection regime. I will be querying the dates with the Council office tomorrow to hear what they say.

A more interesting question, however, is why Morley Town Council took nine months to do their internal audit, most Local Authorities have their inspection window 3-4 months after book closure.

A quote from the very helpful ONB website:

Orchard News Bureau Ltd specialises in obtaining information and financial data from reluctant public bodies.

Some persist in hiding or censoring information which voters, residents and taxpayers have a legal right to see.

But this company has a proven track record of challenging a sub-culture of excessive and unjustified secrecy within Town Halls and Constabulary authorities.

(...)
It is an unfortunate fact of life (the world over) that politicians and civil servants are freer to engage in corruption wherever and whenever editors and journalists abdicate their watchdog roles.

Mr. Micawber would be miserable...

2009-01-11T20:56:00.004Z

More reluctant revelations from our increasingly secretive Town Council whose main medium of communication appears to now be the statutory notice board outside the Town Hall.

The (internally) audited accounts summary for Morley Town Council 2008 are now posted up. Under the terms of the Local Government Act 1972, they are now open to public inspection by any elector for a set period.

The summary indicates whether we need to dig deeper. What can we infer from these?

Well, the income stream hasn't changed very much (up by £1k), but the expenditure has, by nearly £37k. That overspend is more than 20% of the precept, the tax that Morley Householders pay. It has been absorbed by reserves this last financial year but the Council can't do that for ever...

The interesting thing is that it isn't down to staff costs, which went down by nearly £2k. What was it spent upon, we ask ourselves?

Surely Rhubarb isn't that expensive...

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

Tea and Rhubarb

2008-11-23T15:37:00.001Z

In local politics, it is often the most innocuous and (to an incurious observer) banal events, which sum up the prevailing attitude of certain political parties.

I have a bee in my bonnet regarding how public money is spent. This is, from district council level upward, a complicated matter. However, this is not the case at parish/town council level. I get particularly interested if I suspect public money is being spent for party political purposes.

Now, we in Morley celebrate Yorkshire Day on August 1st. Nothing wrong with that! In fact, one would expect that the town council would support that through it’s (recently acquired) Entertainments Committee.

However, following Yorkshire Day, I broke the habit of a few years and wrote a letter to the Morley Observer & Advertiser, which amongst other things observed the following:

“This newspaper stated that that Morley Borough Independent councillors (not Morley town councillors) dished out the tea and rhubarb (I paraphrase). My simple question was, and is, who funded it; Morley Town Council or the MBI party?”

I have asked that question directly many times before, and since. So far, the only reply has been:

“"Ahh back to the Rhubarb, what interest is it of yours who funded it?"
(c) Chairman of the Parish Council (Terrence Grayshon Esquire)

As I say, a silly thing but telling. I don’t care if it only cost a tenner….

Why not just answer the question?

A quote from the MBI website:

Councillor Robert Finnigan said "Morley Folk have so many typical Yorkshire characteristics such as loyalty, tenacity and a desire for plain speaking.

Well said Rob!

What is a liar?

2008-11-14T21:07:00.005Z

The Oxford English Dictionary is subscription only online, so I tend to use dictionary.co.uk (or dictionary.com if no entry found).

What is a liar?

Dictionary - liar - 1 entry.

1. Noun - A person who knowingly utters falsehood; one who lies.

What is a Falsehood?

Dictionary - falsehood - 4 entries.

1. Noun - Want of truth or accuracy; an untrue assertion or representation; error; misrepresentation; falsity.
2. Noun - A deliberate intentional assertion of what is known to be untrue; a departure from moral integrity; a lie.
3. Noun - Treachery; deceit; perfidy; unfaithfulness.
4. Noun - A counterfeit; a false appearance; an imposture.

What is a lie?

lie - 13 entries.

1. Noun - See Lye.
2. Noun - A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive.
3. Noun - A fiction; a fable; an untruth.
4. Noun - Anything which misleads or disappoints.
5. v. i. - To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.

(Ones pertaining to geography or sleeping snipped)

Now Wikipedia is somewhat more pragmatic about it, explaining various types of lies:

A lie (also called prevarication), is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else. A liar is a person who is lying, who has previously lied, or who tends by nature to lie repeatedly.
Lying is typically used to refer to deceptions in oral or written communication.[citation needed] Other forms of deception, such as disguises or forgeries, are generally not considered lies, though the underlying intent may be the same. However, even a true statement can be considered a lie if the person making that statement is doing so to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being untruthful rather than the truthfulness of the statement itself that is considered.

So, is calling someone a liar liable to result in court proceedings? It depends on which definition applies, and the intent. A white lie, for example, may just be for the purpose of simplification where the full detail makes no real difference. Now, let us talk about parking in Morley.

This letter was published in the Morley Obtiser on Wednesday:

I am writing in response to the letter published last week by regular correspondent Nigel Bywater.
The new parking arrangements have been warmly welcomed by the overwhelming majority of residents who have raised the issue with me. Some have offered some suggestions to improve the arrangements, such as better signage and an implementation of the scheme between 8am and 6pm only, and we are exploring these suggestions with officers to see if they can be introduced.
To clarify for all your readers I would re-confirm the following.
All parking in Morley is free- there is no charge to park at any of Morley's car parks. The car park at Morrisons has a three hour limit for those spaces closest to the Town centre and there is no time limit on the spaces at the top of the car park. If you are parking in the bottom section for a three hour period, you need a ticket. You do not need a ticket if you are parking in the unrestricted areas.
The ticket machines stopped working on Monday and Tuesday last week.
I reported them following my own observations and they were fixed by wednesday. If Nigel Bywater had made as much effort in ringing me to report the fault as he does writing letters to the papers then I could have had them fixed quicker. But as ever with Mr. Bywater, whether it's the new sports centre, events in Morley, Morley's Mayor or the new car parking arrangements, he rarely has anything positive to offer.
COUN ROBERT FINNIGAN
Morley Borough Independent

Now I can't comment on whether the new arrangements have been warmly welcomed or not, but every time I go in (which tends to be outside of core shopping hours) there are puzzled people standing at the machines, asking questions.

Why do the Councillors need to explore suggestions about signage & hours of operation? Surely they gave it all careful thought before it was implemnented? Or was it a case of Traffic basically deciding the scope of the scheme and the Councillors nodding? After all, the original concern was people parking all day (which a subsequent survey said was not the case) and it seems rather bizarre to make the scheme a 24 hour one when it isn't warranted.

"There is no time limit on the spaces at the top of the car park"- Yes there is, 23 hours maximum, as specified in the parking order and mentioned in the document produced for handout at Morrisons, additional document item 10c at The Outer South meeting on October 20th. Coun Finnigan was there. Was he not paying attention, had he simply forgotten about this or did he just decide to lie? It is certainly a falsehood definition #1 and a lie definition #4.

"The ticket machines stopped working on Monday and Tuesday last week". And the rest. Qweensway 2 machine was broken on October 25th, November 2nd and November 3rd whilst Qweensway 3 was broken on Nov 2nd/3rd. How do I know this? Because I commented about it on facebook at the time.

He then proceeds to slag off Nigel Bywater for not ringing him. Surely nobody should have to ring Councillors as anything other than a matter of last resort when things aren't getting done. After all, parking attendants patrol the Queensway area and apparently always check that the machines are working before issuing tickets. Perhaps they should also report the faulty machines to their base as well so that it doesn't need the intervention of a Councillor to get them resolved.

I can recall Morley Borough Independents telling me not to worry about being smeared by the Labour Party when I stood for the Town Council, as it wasn't the done thing for politicians to attack "concerned citizens". When did that go out of the window, and why?

I also notice that the paper didn't print Cllr Finnigan's address. I'm curious to know if he is still living in Queen Street.

Morley Town Council money

2008-11-09T14:13:00.002Z

It was quoted in this weeks Morley Obtiser that "the position of the council was "desperate" "

It would be nice, would it not, to know what "desperate" means.

I chaired the Finance committee on MTC for several years; and indeed still held that position when I stood down in May 2007.

In July 2005 I sent a letter to the committee chairmen (reproduced below, and all my own words). The following November Morley Town Council set their budget (my final one). This budget did not, in my recollection, reduce the level of reserves; in fact, I suspect owing to committee underspend, it may have increased them.

I recall speaking to a fellow member of Finance & General Purposes committee, and saying we can lower the precept here, because it aint being spent. I was twittered at for a while and in the end the precept stayed as it was, and is (about £18 for a band D)

Oh well, maiden post :)

"Dear

I am writing to you as a Chairman of one of the standing committees of Morley Town Council.

The Town Clerk has advised that external audit have recently queried the high reserves held by the Town Council. It has been explained that circa £36,000 has been set aside to meet the variance between the precept and planned expenditure in the current year. It would also be anticipated, although this cannot be confirmed until 2006 budgets are developed and agreed by Council, that a similar amount would be used to offset 2006/07 expenditure.

External Audit have stated that they feel the level of reserves held is too high and that the precept claim should be reduced in future years. Should a similar amount of reserves be retained at the end of March 2005; they will be closely scrutinising those annual accounts with particular regard to reserves and the subsequent precept claimed for 2006-07.

The Town Clerk has asked External Audit if they could indicate what an acceptable level of reserves would be. Audit advised that a working balance should be held to cover emergencies but could not say how much this would amount to and advised seeking further guidance from YLCA.

In order that the Town Council is not compromised by a further increase in reserves, I am writing to ask Chairmen to ensure, as far as possible, that all planned expenditure is committed as soon as possible. This will avoid a large end of year surplus.

If there are any problems with the above, please contact the Town Clerk as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Paul Jamieson
Chairman of Finance and General Purposes Committee "

How weak have we become?

2008-11-08T15:27:00.001Z

(This post appeared at Underdogs bite upwards, a (small L) libertarian blogger of the sort that the Secretary of State for Bread and Circuses would not approve of. I have admired his very cogent analysis of the Righteous but this post came along and stopped me dead.

It is the best blogpost that I have read this year and worthy of much, much wider reading.)

First, a parable. Apply it to whatever you like.

There was once an unfenced hill where a flock of sheep lived.

One rainy day, a man came to talk to them. "It's cold and wet here. How can you stand it?" he asked.

"It's not so bad," said the sheep. " We get up when we like, there's plenty to eat, and life is pretty good most of the time. It's raining now but we can just go under the trees if it gets too much. It will stop eventually. We have our freedom, and to us that's the most important thing."

"It looks awful," the man said. "And how do you know it will stop raining? It might go on for weeks. Your land might become swampy and all your grass might be washed away. Tell you what, there is a big building over there. It's warm and dry inside. I will make it let you in. It's only fair. You deserve better than this."

"Is there grass to eat?" the sheep asked.

"No, but I will make the building provide hay. I will make it provide a place to sleep and food to eat and you need do nothing to earn it. You'll be warm and dry and still you'll be free. Really, it's best to take my offer just in case, don't you think? Surely you can see it's for your benefit?"

Some of the sheep were suspicious. "What do you get out of it?"

"Me? Nothing." The man smiled. "And once in a while, I'll invite the most special of you to come and live in a special flock where life will be more wonderful than you have ever known. Of course, you won't all be able to join that flock at once but I promise, every one of you will pass through the Golden Doorway eventually."

The sheep considered. A few distrusted the man and refused to go with him, but most accepted his kind offer. They laughed and scoffed at those who chose to stay in the rain while they filed obediently into the man's dry, warm abbatoir.

_________

And now, a rant.

Does anyone remember the 'stiff upper lip' of the British? The fighting spirit? The indomitable people who once ran a big chunk of the planet, and who could chase away armed guerillas with a walking stick and an angry voice? A people who, nevertheless, could laugh at themselves and had a great, if sometimes cruel, sense of humour? What happened to them?

Those people would never have set off a security scare because a schoolboy dressed up as the Joker and waved a plastic gun around. Those people would never have arrested a man in fancy dress because he had a plastic knife as part of his outfit. Those people would not have shrieked 'Terrorist!' at the sight of a plastic halloween skeleton. The first might have earned a caning, but not expulsion. The second and third should not even have raised an eyebrow. Neither should Old Holborn's walk.

The people who replaced those real British are spineless weaklings who jump at shadows. Who call the police if they are slightly offended by a word or two. Worse, the police respond not by saying 'It's nothing, don't worry about it', but by harassing and usually arresting anyone complained about, no matter how trivial and all too often, no matter whether an offence has been committed or not.

These new people are quaking, trembling jellys. They are frightened by mere words, and terrified by a raised hand. They take offence at anything they're told to take offence at. Those who consider themselves strong are those who have not yet experienced adversity because when they do, they run to the government for help. They cannot help themselves. They will not try.

Oh, there are a few real people left, for sure, but they are only a few. Most are now soft, weak loathsome creatures who stare at the unreality of reality TV from their well-pressed sofas and aim their rage wherever the Righteous tell them. The two minute hate. One day smokers, next day drinkers, next day hoodies, next the obese, next Eurasia... or is it Eastasia? Doesn't matter. We are at war with the terrorists. We have always been at war with the terrorists.

These people who once called themselves the Great of Great Britain (can we still use that name for this country, or is it not considered sufficiently self-humiliating now?) are useful only for rendering into animal feed. They accept every word they are fed and have no problem at all with the doublethink required to accept it all. Coal-fired power stations will kill us all through global warming. We must build huge windmills everywhere to save the environment and we must not install new power lines underground because that would harm the environment. Snow in October? That's caused by global warming.

They obsess about their carbon footprint while having no idea what carbon is, they accept that the same number of alcohol units apply to each and every person, that if they allow a ninety-year-old smoker within a hundred yards of them in the open air, they will die the next day from lung cancer. They accept that one ageing rock perv who everyone recognises because his face has been all over the news will sneak up unnoticed and steal their children, and they accept that social services can take children from parents for any reason they feel like making up.

They accept that everything that happens to them is someone else's fault and that they are entitled to compensation for it, and they accept that events on the other side of the planet are all the fault of the British.

Doublethink. All of it. And those minds, once the envy of the world, are now so numb and feeble that they cannot see any contradiction in the information drifting into them. None of it is sorted, categorised, analysed or considered. Every last bit of nonsense is accepted as if God himself delivered it to them.

Today I heard that Sainsbury's is offering education, including basic literacy and maths education to its staff. Good God, what is going on when the supermarkets have to do the job our schools once did? Basic literacy and maths. Hardly a part-time degree, is it? They have set a target of 25% of staff having a qualification within five years. While I think what Sainsbury's is doing here is commendable, the fact remains that they should not have to. We used to have schools. Now we have indoctrination centres and that is just accepted by those sofa-bound parents. They will see no contradiction in wasting years at school only to start earning basic GCSE's after a spell of trolley-pushing.

When did this happen? When was the spirit sucked out of the people of this country? It was no overnight thing. It started small and spread like fungus throughout the land. It began with the best intentions, as these things always do. It began when those who had no jobs were entitled to a small government payment to keep them going until they found work. That, in itself, was not the problem. Work was always the better option and the dole was an embarassing place to be. Oh, yes, there were a few who were happy with that dole cheque and happy to sit back and do nothing but for most, it wasn't enough.

Then came free housing, free gas and electricity, a host of freebies and a wide range of tax-funded benefits until unemployment was more profitable than most of the lower-paid jobs. The idea that those lower-paid jobs were just a start, that they could lead into better-paid jobs, seems to have been lost. The people settled back to claim, spend, and claim some more. Their bodies fell into disuse, their brains atrophied by the drivel pouring from the little box in the corner. That box now occupies half the wall in some living rooms, in accordance with its status in those people's lives. In many houses, most rooms have them. You can even buy pocket ones. The mind-numbing output is everywhere.

Now they are confused by contradictions their conditioning insists they accept without question. Why question, when some vestige of their minds already knows there is no answer? Just accept it and have another beer. Drown the confusion with a chaser of something fluorescent. Bodies flaccid, minds baffled, they accept that they are obese because they eat the wrong kind of food, not because they eat too much and do too little. It's not their fault, you see? If only they had more benefits, they could afford fruit to eat while they watch three hundred channels on their 60-inch flatscreen with surround sound. The contradiction is whisked away by doublethink.

There are a few real people left. Some who are fit and healthy, some with intelligence, some to whom these contradictions are obvious. A few who would, if they could, wake up the zombies the British have become and urge them once more to innovate, to fend for themselves, to reach for those stars they once looked up to see.

To dismiss insulting words not as 'offensive' but as 'the ramblings of a fool'. To stand up for those rights they once had instead of allowing them to be taken away one by one. To think their own thoughts once more. To see those contradictions for what they are, and to analyse and deny them. To take back their lives.

Can they be woken? I am sure some can. I am sure some of the British can be revived. If I thought there was no hope at all I would not be writing this.

For many, it's far too late. For many, there can be no escape from that sleep they believe to be real life. They will spend their time displaying Pavlovian offence at anything that is pointed out to them. They will bleat 'Baaan' on command. They will enjoy the daily two minute hate, and agree like those sheep that while they can no longer do the things they used to enjoy, the slaughterhouse is at least warmer than the field. Those are the British now. Those are the 'vast majority' the Righteous love to quote at dissenters.

It can be dangerous to wake sleepwalkers, and we know that the shepherds will try to prevent it, but if we do nothing then that abbatoir will expand up our hillside until it is covered. In the end, the choice is simple. Take the risk or join them in the warmth of oblivion.

The rain does stop. They just need to be reminded of that.

(Original post & comments here)

Contacting Councillors - What happened next?

2008-10-19T17:46:00.011Z

(See previous post for the question).

A few councillors answered the question, affirming they had not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against staff. Their images have been made smaller in the collage below.

Many councillors have not replied (a few auto-replied but have not sent any subsequent responses). Their images remain the default size.

A number of Councillors replied but did not answer the question. One referred my email to the Chief Executive, others simply noted my comments. Their images have been enlarged below.

The Chief Exec subsequently replied, advising that he had passed my query onto the Chief Officer HR to respond on the matters raised. I await that with interest but I do not regard Council proceedings to be at issue, rather the judgement of the Councillors who initiated the action.

I was told informally that an email went round to Councillors from the Chief Exec on the matter but I have not seen the contents of that message yet. However, no more responses were received from Councillors after I was told that.

Councillor update

2008-10-17T22:16:00.002Z

During the course of last week, I successively emailed all Leeds City Councillors (who had a published email address) the following email, in groups of ten or so (so that it was obvious to the Councillor that they were not being singled out):

Dear Councillor,

I am a blogger and citizen journalist based in Morley.

It has been brought to my attention that Councillors have been complaining to Line Managers about opinions posted onto Internet Facebook forums by people known to be Council employees. There is no indication that the comments are libellous or that the employees are in politically restricted posts.

I am contacting all ninety-nine City Councillors to enquire if they are involved in this matter.

I would be grateful if you would confirm to me whether or not you have actioned any formal or informal disciplinary proceedings related to any employee of the Council posting on social networking sites. By all means elaborate should you wish to do so.

Thank you in anticipation,

Regards,

Ian Grey
Shades of Grey Blog.

It is now a full week since the last batch of emails were sent.

See if you can guess what happened next?

Fresh new look

2008-10-11T23:55:00.003Z

The template has been cleared out of clutter and a more readable font selected.

(My eyes aren't as good as they used to be!)

Rotten Boroughs

2008-10-08T20:35:00.001Z

We have freeedom in speech in this country, unless of course we are not being nice to minorities, or they perceive it to be so. Otherwise, we are more-or-less able to express our opinions provided we don't stray into the calumny zone.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, December 1948

In my "about the Blogger" page, I have the following statement:-

I have no malign intent to libel anyone, make implications that are misleading or breach copyright of other people’s images but will robustly defend my stance if I am bullied or manipulated. If you are paid by the public purse, you are subject to public scrutiny and I regard you as fair game. If you are a politician, I am reluctant to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In that spirit, I turn my beady eye to the latest goings on locally. There are rumours circling the Morley chattering classes that Leeds City Councillors have approached the line managers of two Leeds City Council employees who have made postings on Facebook about what the councillor considers to be inappropriate remarks, i.e. disagreeing with them. Neither of these employees are believed to be in jobs that are classed as politically restricted posts.

Now this concerns me greatly as I regard this as suppression of free speech and depending on the circumstances, quite possibly an abuse of the Councillor code of conduct re 3.1 Treating others with respect, 6(a) Using your position improperly, 3 (b) Bullying and 3 (c) intimidation.

Now, I can understand this approach for the Private Sector. If I posted opinions about the Board Policy of the PLC that I work for I would expect some form of disciplinary procedure against me but there are clear guidelines in my terms of employment that I must not do such things and that all media contact is to be via our Corporate Communications team.

A Public Body, however, is another matter. I imagine that 95% of local government employees are not in politically restricted posts and I consider it perfectly fair that a bin man, say, should be able to argue about library provision, or a social worker hold strong views about education. They are employees of a legal entity with a statutory instrument of Governance powers and the Councillors are elected Members subject to full public scrutiny of their actions. All council tax payers are stakeholders in local Government and provided that they do not cross the line into defamation, there is no human right to not be offended. (Indeed, a defence against defamation proceedings is "fair comment in the public interest" so politicians have less protection than others against libel.)

Now I don't know too much about the details about these cases and what I have heard is inevitably one-sided, some may well be hearsay distorted by the nature of story swapping. The two employees are inevitably going to be circumspect so I intend to find out about this the other way round, by asking the Councillors.

There are 99 Councillors on Leeds City Council, pictured below. (The images are copyright Leeds City Council but I clain fair use). I'm sure that most of them are honourable. I will shortly be composing a model email to enquire as to whether they are involved in this matter. It may take a number of weeks but I don't give up willingly.

These days the Press have mostly abandoned investigative journalism, certainly at local level. However, bloggers are journalists as well and Citizen Journalists are starting to ask questions.

This isn't a massive scandal, but it fits in with the Morleygate ethos. Councillors, explain yourself.

(Rotten Boroughs is a Private Eye feature about Councillors who overstep their authority.)

First Post!

2008-10-07T16:59:00.003Z

Firstly, thanks Ian for allowing me access. I look forward to the coming weeks (months?!).

Secondly, I've never blogged before so if I break anything, apologies. (The law of libel will never be broken though ;-) )

Lastly, I will have to be very circumspect in certain matters for a few weeks.

Afterwards,let the trumpets ring out...

Cheers

pj

We are back!

2008-10-05T21:02:00.001Z

Well, sort of. A second author joins us for these interesting times.

WE HAVE MOVED!

2008-01-24T16:37:00.001Z

Now at: http://iangrey.org

Time to move on...

2007-09-13T19:22:00.001Z

Morley is a small town and inevitably small town politics can be very parochial. Every week, I read the local rag and think whether any of the stories and goings on are worth the effort of putting up here. As I am somewhat out of the local political limelight these days I can often only guess at the real stories behind the local news.

Rather than struggling to keep the posts interesting and topical here, I think that now it is time to put away the Morleygate soapbox and move on.

This blog is going to be retired and future posts about Morley (and anything else that takes my fancy) will appear at Shades of Grey, my regular blog.

My thanks to those of you who have dropped by and added their tuppence worth along the way, it has been interesting.

Always leave the audience wanting more is an old showbiz saying, so I leave you with a video- featuring the bus ride from Tingley Bar to the side of Morley Town Hall.

(The whole world is on YouTube somewhere...)

Hurrah!

2007-08-02T19:57:00.000Z

Some activity on the Town Council website. Lots of links broken within the pages, but most of the Home ones lead somewhere. Meeting dates are up and even a smattering of Agendas for recent meetings. Minutes would be useful...

This Blog is now on holiday until September, as is Shades of Grey.

...unless something particularly interesting happens in Morley, worthy of mention. (& not Terry Grayshon going to a Garden Party).

Town Council Notice Board

2007-07-15T16:59:00.000Z

Well, it seems to be in use now, there are a few Morley in Bloom posters in it and a thank you letter from a trader. No "Official" notices in it though, the July meetings list is still on the main board near the streetmap

Sounds expensive...

2007-06-28T18:24:00.001Z

News reaches me that Town Councillors might be going to vote themselves expenses or allowances.

Cllr Sanders (the new Mayor) has regularly complained about not getting reimbursed for all of the letters and phone calls she makes whilst cajoling the landlords down at Morley Bottoms. The previous Finance committees have always knocked it back however, on point of principle. The reason for this is that Parish Councillors are not allowed by law to claim expenses for anything undertaken within the Parish. (They can, however, claim for items outside the boundary, e.g. for travelling to a training day in Leeds). Councillors are at liberty to make phone calls from the Town Council Office, or take post there to be franked.

It is now possible, however, to get an independent renumeration panel to set allowable sums. This comes at a cost, of course. The cost of paying it to all the Councillors (regardless of participation) and the cost of administering the scheme. Already there are rumours of a new Admin Assistant as the Real Admin assistant is covering for the Town Clerk who is on long term sick leave.

The biggest cost will be in the pockets of those who pay Morley Town Council precept. It doesn't sound to me as though there is much cutting of cloth to suit the means, 2006/7 is already a deficit budget drawing on reserves.

I have a softcopy of the previous position of the Finance and General Purposes Committee on Councillor expenses:

• Morley Town Council commenced in May 2000. At that time, it was understood that elected members of town and parish councils are unpaid, as the bodies are the first tier of local government.

• Councillors could claim for mileage and subsistence expenses if performing an approved duty outside the council boundaries (conferences etc.) No allowances were paid for attendance at meetings, committees or any other approved duty within the town council area.

• New regulations came into force on 1st May 2003. These allow for a basic allowance to be paid to members of a town council. This allowance is separate from the travel and subsistence expenses referred to above.

• The basic allowance is calculated to cover the expenses which are associated with the basic duties of being a local councillor.

• The basic allowance is set by a parish remuneration panel. Such a body must be set up by the responsible body, in our case this would be Leeds City Council.
The panel could only be established if requested to do so by a town or parish council.

• The cost of setting up a remuneration panel would be £900 approx. This cost would be met by the councils requesting it (i.e. one council would pay the full cost, nine councils would pay £100 each etc.)

To date, and to the best of my knowledge, such a panel has not been requested by any of the local councils within the Leeds Metropolitan District.

• The new rules were published by the National Association of Local Councils as Legal Topic Note 24. These were considered by Morley Town Council’s Finance & General Purposes Committee at our meeting held on 13th November 2003.

• At that meeting it was proposed that the existing payments for travel and subsistence be maintained, and we would also ask that a dependent carers allowance be considered for members having caring responsibilities. It was agreed that this would be put forward to the Independent Remuneration Panel as part of a joint submission by the Yorkshire Local Council Association.

• We did not support the payment of a basic allowance to members of Morley Town Council.

• These resolutions were approved at the full meeting of Morley Town Council held on 17th December 2003.

• The regulations (The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances)(England) 2003) do not make provision for the payment of personal expenses incurred by individual elected members.

• It must be emphasied that the allowances as detailed apply only to approved duties, i.e. activities that the Council has asked a councillor to undertake.

My position on this is simple. If you want an allowance to be a Councillor, stand for Leeds City Council. Morley Town Council does not have any real responsibility or authority and most of the money (which comes entirely from Morleians) goes on admin & double taxation. If MTC ever gets any truly devolved responsibilities (and the funding to go with it) then there may be a case. Otherwise One Million Pounds (and counting) is not good value for a talking shop and civic pride programme.

(You can see an example renumeration panel assessment here, .pdf file)

Letter of complaint

2007-06-22T07:48:00.000Z

Nigel Bywater of Airedale Terrace grumbles in the paper this week about the lack of notice for the annual general meeting (I think he means the Town Meeting). The office advised him that it had been on the Notice Board for three days, all that they are required to do. He also grumbled that it hadn't been publicised on the email Forum (and perhaps doesn't realise that it has been deleted). He pointed out Leeds website areas about encouraging local participation.

He asks what the MBIs will do to put this right. I await next week's letters with interest.

A big name for Morley!

2007-06-17T18:47:00.000Z

If you don't ask, you don't get...

Town Council rather quiet...

2007-06-16T18:15:00.000Z

I'm having withdrawal symptoms. I don't get agendas through the letterbox any more. I don't really know who is on what committee. There is sod-all about it in the papers, apart from caped photo-ops. The website is moribund. The discussion list was killed off. The new notice board is bereft. I don't know what they are plotting. No newsletters for a while now.

Is nobody interested? Probably not. As someone said to me recently- "is so & so on the Town council, or the proper one?".

One million Pounds, and counting...

Obtiser letters

2007-06-07T20:51:00.000Z

Robert Finnigan replies:

Actions speak for themselves (Journalist headline)

YOU have recently printed letters from BNP councillor Chris Beverley and former Independent councillor Stewart McArdle criticising the Morley Borough Independents. Both claim to avoid publicity yet are quick to use the newspapers to further their own self-promotion – thereby using the same process they condemn others for using.
The Morley Borough Independents will continue to work hard to deliver on the programme that got them elected and will not be detracted from this work by those who chose to bicker in the newspapers.

Finally, contrary to BNP Coun Beverley’s report last week, the ‘A’ Frame on Millbeck Approach is being partially financed by Morley Borough Independent Coun Terry Grayshon. We believe that in such cases actions speak much louder than words.

COUN ROBERT FINNIGAN

MORLEY BOROUGH INDEPENDENT

I think it succeeds in making Chris Beverley look stupid. It doesn't actually challenge any of Stewart's points though...

Ripples from Stewart Mc's letter last week

2007-06-02T23:28:00.000Z

A couple of letters, but not eactly earth shattering.

The first is from Derek Bradley and I think his flowery prose obscures the message somewhat.

Stewart McArdle's valedictory letter encompassed many views which he has long held and, more importantly, has long applied.
Indeed Rudyard Kipling may have coined the phrase "true to his salt" for such people throughout the world, not just the Indian continent.
His is correct also in his forecast that being "a true independent" is to commit political suicide in Morley, think Slingsby, think Welham!
Would your readers, if not Stewart, accept that "a rose by any other name
would smell as sweet"?
The larger picture on Morley Town Council is that, yes, they all come under the same banner, but the various elected councillors have different issues introduced to them by our citizens which they must pursue if they are true to the promise they made to supporters during the run up to the last election.
Stewart infers that now we are congregated under the one party banner then the party will decide what to push and what to discard.
This must not be confused with a councillor independently pursuing a citizen's concerns, either direct to the relevant department of Leeds City Council or, by choice, within the committees of Morley Town Council.
This keeps the citizen informed and safe in the knowledge that will apply to future concerns also.
I have been following this simple axiom since council year 2000.
DEREK BRADLEY
MBI, Scatcherd Ward
MORLEY TOWN COUNCIL

Meanwhile, Chris Beverley of the BNP City Councillor responds (but not to follow up any of the allegations he made). A strange mixture of tongue in cheek parody and pot calling kettle blackism.

Stewart McArdle's letter in last week's Observer and Advertiser shed some well needed light on the inner workings of the Morley Borough Independents Party.
Mr McArdle spoke about the endless press releases and letters sent out by the MBIs in order to create the illusion that they are responsible for the work of others. A perfect example of this can be found in last week's paper with the article entitled 'New move to solve motorcycle problem.'
The implication is that the Morley Borough Independents have been responsible for these measures. As usual, however, that is not the case. For a start, the ginnel that is to benefit from the A-frame deterrent is on Millside Walk, not Millbeck Approach. The MBI's have not even checked their facts before trying to claim credit for other people's work.
I have been in touch with a number of local residents from this area over the past year regarding the continued problems with anti-social behaviour associated with this ginnel, which includes the issue of the illegal riding of motorbikes through it.
I have liaised with the local police and also youth workers who have targeted this area, and I have also been in touch with various council officers and departments with a view to the possibility of having the ginnel closed altogether (which a considerable number of local residents want) or at least to have the issue of illegal motorbike riding addressed through
such measures as those discussed above.
I was happy to recently find out that an 'A'-frame has been approved for this location, which should at least stop motorbikes being ridden through this ginnel, if not address the other related problems. Whilst I am happy with this result, I had not intended to send out a press release about this, as I believe that councillors should spend their time just getting on with their job and helping people with issues like this, and less time crowing about such achievements in the press.
Nevertheless, if people would prefer to see an MBI-style comedy press release from me regarding this issue, complete with a photo of me grinning and pointing at the newly-installed A-frame, please let me know and I will see what I can do. I might even invite the MBIs along for the photo-shoot!
COUN CHRIS BEVERLEY
British National Party
MORLEY SOUTH, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL

Meanwhile, Morleytoday.co.uk gives errors whilst morleyobserver.co.uk goes through (although the site is actually still widely based around morleytoday.co.uk URLs at present).

Perhaps the paper have wised up that "MorleyToday" was more realistically "MorleyLastWeek" and maybe a name change might be in the offing?

UPDATE: Morleytoday.co.uk working again- it just seems rather flaky at times.

MBIs help labour shock

2007-05-24T17:30:00.000Z

The letters page Councillor thank yous are now coming to an end, although there was another "Uriah Heep" humbled one.

Ex-Councillor Stuart McArdle has a letter in the Obtiser that comes as a surprise...

perhaps the revelation that the MBI's were delivering leaflets for Labour candidate Jack Dunn will come as a shock to many.

Read the whole thing HERE

As suspected, MBIs now have a lot more clout on the Leeds minority administration.

Councillor training I'd like to see...

2007-05-21T17:38:00.000Z

Burning our money

2007-05-20T20:07:00.000Z

I'm a fan of the Burning our money blog, which has the following strapline:

They spend 43% of our income, yet fail to deliver decent services. They promise prosperity, yet tax and regulate our economy into stasis. They talk up social justice, yet consign millions to welfare dependency.

Enough is enough. We the peasants demand our high-spending, high-living, conflicted politicos mend their ways.

The scary figures quoted on Wat's blog make the expenditure figures of Morley Town Council look somewhat trivial. However, they have a habit of adding up...

In an earlier posting, I guesstimated the tax hit on Morleians to be round about the £1m mark. I was fairly close:

2000/01 £104,870
2001/02 £104,870
2002/03 £104,870
2003/04 £152,900
2004/05 £166,661
2005/06 £166,661
2006/07 £171,650
2007/08 £171,650

TOTAL £1,144,132

This is from the local authority precept which is applied as a supplement to the council tax at various ratios depending upon the house banding. (Blogged before: The default band D is £17.85).

The 2007/8 budget is for about £220k so the taxation isn't enough and reserves are being drawn on. This isn't sustainable, of course, in the longer term the Council will need to cut its cloth or dig deeper into our pockets.

Now £17.85 doesn't sound a lot, but £1.14 Million does, especially when a lot of it goes on double-taxation for things we supposedly already pay for, like local policing and keeping the parks tidy.

I'd question spending more than a Monkey's worth of Wonga on crockery as well!

Political punks...

2007-05-20T15:23:00.000Z

A strange tome in my Inbox...

Went to vote, and noticed there was a Paul Cook standing in our ward

"Oh", I quipped "He used to be drummer with the Sex Pistols."

Later when I saw the results, I saw Stephen Jones had also been elected.

" Ah", I opined. "He was the Sex Pistols guitarist"

Needless to say, I scanned the rest of the results eagerly.

Nearest I could find was J.Beverley. Sid Vicious' real name was John Beverley, so that'll do.

Now all we need is a Rotten councillor... :)

Missing in action...

2007-05-19T16:06:00.000Z

The Morley Town Council mailing list has disappeared. No announcements or apologies, just deletion.

Karen (The Wife one) says it might have been deleted by mistake, but this is very unlikely as when you choose the delete list option it goes through an are you sure? consequences routine.

It would seem that someone perhaps doesn't like the potential risk of what could be posted up there, e.g. opinions that don't align with the party line and are therefore "inappropriate" in PC speak.

It wasn't a particularly good mailing list, being inactive for long periods and populated by the usual suspects with entrenched opinions.

However, it was a communication channel for many Morleians and even had admirers from visitors abroad. To delete it unannounced in such a fashion is immature, childish, petty and vindictive. It is the sort of thing the Labour Party would do, not the new occupants of the "Morley Numptorium"...

Uriah Heep

2007-05-18T17:05:00.000Z

The First post's Mole says that for Gordon Brown to be "truly humbled" whilst he (and his team) has been vigourously and ruthlessly getting MPs to get them to sign up to him is cynical in the extreme.

There is a curious parallel here- Terry Grayshon wrote a letter to the Obtiser last week saying he was also very humbled- whilst the MBI SWAT team spent time off work three weeks before the election targeting hundreds of voters with personalised letters, presumably up to the limit of their allowable expenditure.

I don't mean to tar the MBIs with the same brush as Labour, they couldn't even get anywhere close to being as manipulative, sleazy, callous or downright shady in their pursuit of power. I think it is just an unfortunate choice of words with the benefit of hindsight.

Having said that, the MBIs still want to be strong on News Management- there is a letter from Gareth Beevers that reads as though it has been written by others. (You get the feel for these things when you know the people involved).

Anyway, Terry "Uriah" Grayshon has been elected as Deputy Town Mayor. He has joked about it for the last three years and now it is likely to happen.

(The Town Mayor for this year is Joyce Sanders, no surprises there.)

The Abolish Morley Town Council Party?

2007-05-17T23:47:00.000Z

Interesting goings on at Bury St. Edmunds...

could it happen in Morley?

is it worth the circa £1,000,000 collected in precept taxes since formation?

One million pounds. food for thought...

Worth a look...

2007-05-16T20:18:00.000Z

http://republicofhydepark.blogspot.com/index.html

A Councillor's view on the Leeds minority power struggle (that the MBIs could tip the balance on).

Presumptive Press

2007-05-16T18:26:00.000Z

The Morley Obtiser has a story on the front page about the forthcoming literature festival in October.

In it, it describes the Deputy Mayoress, Joyce Sanders, as the Mayor-elect.

Seeing as how the meeting appointing her would not take place until today at 7pm, it is extremely presumptious of the paper as the Mayor is decided by who the Councillors vote for.

However, with 23 Morley Borough Independents and only one dissenting voice in Joanne Beverley, BNP Member, it is pretty much a given other than interference from an act of God.

(Traditionally the Labour Group would propose Stuart Welham in a bit of mischief making but that won't happen for the next four years).

On the basis of near unanimity, will the MBIs dispense with their behind closed doors pre-meeting? There is no longer any justification to have to stage manage the meetings these days.

On another note, i wonder who the deputy Town Mayor will be? Suitability is based on both inclination and capability, not just longevity. My guess is Wenda Whitehead...

Back from the edge...

2007-05-16T00:50:00.000Z

UKIPhome site went rather quickly. It is now back as DroogieBlog, written in Nadsat.

Get your oranges out and wind the key...

http://www.droogie.com

You might need to load the dictionary/translator...

Morley Annual Town meeting...

2007-05-13T10:56:00.000Z

...will be held on Tuesday 15th May at 6pm in the Town Hall.

Diddly-squit publicity though, apart from the statutory announcement on the Town Hall notice Board (undated)- no agenda given.

I'm not even certain that I was aware of it as a Councillor pre- May 3rd, although I have the recall capability of a goldfish these days!

I wouldn't expect there to be a particularly high turnout for this meeting. It is a statutory obligation but doesn't achieve a great deal.

Tories put the boot in Gordon Brown

2007-05-11T18:39:00.000Z

(I've seen better, but it gave me a small wry smile)

Newspaper Editor thinks MBI need a name change...

2007-05-11T17:04:00.000Z

Bob Evans, the Editor of the Morley Obtiser, offers an opinion on Quasi-Independence.

The big winner, both in town and city polls, was the Morley Borough Independents. They took both Morley North and South in the city elections and became the major player in the town elections.
Perhaps now it is time for the MBI to consider a change of party name.
The Collins English dictionary quotes independent as: "free from control in action; judgement" and "not dependent on anything else for function, validity, etc".
With the continued rise of the MBI, it would be hard to argue that it is now not a political party in its own right. Perhaps "The Morley Party" or "The Morley Alliance" would be more appropriate.

You can read the full article HERE (if their flaky website is working).

Bob, it is a party in its own right- see the electoral commission. Their accounts are online as well.

(They did it to get recognised status as a grouping on Leeds City Council).

The lean green sewing machine

2007-05-11T16:39:00.000Z

On the way to the election count last friday, I wandered down to the library as I was a little early. I noticed that the Labour HQ had been fitted with new doors and windows so I took a snap.

On reviewing my photos, I now notice that the Watermelonmobile is parked up, so CCMP was in.

News reaches me of more gossip on how he was nobbled to make way for Ed Balls. The "plot" is currently on Times Online

Morley Town Council results

2007-05-11T15:46:00.000Z

The Morley results ARE published, just in a more obscure bit of their website.

Figures are not given for the electorate or the number of ballot papers so I have based the percentage figure on the highest number of votes received plus the number of spoilt papers. As voters could vote for any number of candidates up to the maximum (3, 4 or 5) and quite a few voted for zero without the papers being classed as spoilt, there were a much higher number of voters than the figure may suggest.

(I will request the details from Leeds).

In Central Ward, BNP came second and fourth, with Labour third. In Churwell, BNP came last.

BNP came second and Labour third in Elmfield, I expect that a fourth MBI would have succeeded in this Ward, but they presumably deferred to Stuart Welham who did rather badly as an Independent, coming in second last to Albert Slingsby.
In Scatcherd, BNP came second and there wasn't any candidates to come third!

Note that there is a clear percentage gap between MBI and BNP.

In Teale, BNP beat Labour and the two (BNP) Independents came last. In Topcliffe, BNP came a closer second but beat Labour in their heartlands.

Town Council results

2007-05-10T19:53:00.000Z

...still not up on the Leeds Website so analysis will have to wait.

The winner results are up on the Town council website though, which looks rather similar to the MBI site list (which doesn't include the BNP Councillor, unsurprisingly).

The site has been updated but doesn't have too much content yet.

It is also broken under firefox...

Town Council gets a new notice board

2007-05-08T20:59:00.000Z

No, that isn't whitewash, it is protective paper on the perspex.

Results- a closer look.

2007-05-08T12:22:00.000Z

Here are the official results for Morley North & South, images from a spreadsheet. I've postulated the spoilt papers so that the percentages match and I've ordered them as to vote share. Note that BNP were second both times, the Lib Dems came last and when the share of the electorate (rather than the share of the vote) is looked at it is rather pitiful- less than 20% voted for Bob Gettings and less than 15% voted for Terry grayshon.

The Town Council results are not published yet.

Result!

2007-05-04T14:04:00.000Z

Result- City Council- Independents in North & South.

Town Council- 23 Morley Borough Independents, one BNP, no labour. (Subject to verification).

My own ward has five MBI independents. Was five laboour. Result!

BNP get a result:...

2007-05-03T20:02:00.000Z

BNP are claiming that the Electoral Commission agree that anti-election material needs to be declared and taken into account at election times.

You can see their story here. I haven't seen it verified anywhere though.

Guessing the results:

2007-05-03T18:51:00.000Z

I won't put money on it, but I reckon the results tomorrow might look like the following:

City Council:
Morley South- Terry Grayshon (MBI), 2nd Mike Mee (BNP)
Morley North- Bob Gettings (MBI), 2nd Stuart McArdle (Independent) (OR POSSIBLY THE OTHER WAY ROUND, A CLOSE CALL!)
Ardsley & Robin Hood- jack Dunn (Labour) 2nd Joanna Beverley (BNP)

Town Council:
Morley Borough Independents 14
BNP 6
Labour 2
Independent 2

I wouldn't like to put names in frames for the Town Council though, it is too hard to call.

In a final push...

2007-05-03T18:37:00.000Z

Labour did a last minute leaflet drop today. A bit late fellas, I went to the polling station at 7:15am.

David Langham is the City Council candidate.- I don't know him, although I did know his Dad Peter who used to be the Town Council Mace Bearer until his unfortunate death in early 2006. That connection is a bit of a "so what?" to me as I didn't think it of any relevance to him standing as a Councillor, let alone feature in his shiny leaflet.

I do know the three stooges listed here. Not exactly a hard sell, what?

It is a sad reflection on local Labour that they can only drag along three candidates for the five seats of their only "safe" ward. (and only muster eleven candidates overall when the BNP managed twelve).

Election day

2007-05-03T12:23:00.000Z

I nipped into the polling station on the way to work. I was about the fifth to vote, although someone followed me in (who wanted to vote for Leeds, but not Morley).

The City Council ballot paper was white, the Town Council one was green and had two columns whilst the sample ballot fixed to the booth was a single column, a contradiction which I thought was potentially confusing for the more hard of thinking voter. As a passing comment, the shade of green for the Town Council ballot was MBI green!

Something else I noticed was the lack of official mark (the stamp out or emboss used to show it came from the polling officer). On querying that I was told "we don't do that any more".

(It is still in the rules though about not disclosing what it is).

Both votes went in the same box- one more job to do tomorrow, separating them before bundling, counting and sorting.

Politics is getting personal

2007-05-02T15:30:00.000Z

Today I received a personalised letter from Cllr Terry Grayshon (as did Karen). They both had 2nd class stamps so they were probably posted on Saturday last week.

This might be what the BNP are supposedly getting upset about, although probably not.

The letters included the following leaflet.

Let us have a reality check here. The only place the MBI have real power (but not control as they only have one third of the Councillors) is on the Area Committee South. The Council as a whole is run by a rainbow alliance of Conservative, Lib Dem and Greens who form the executive posts as they have a 52 seat majority (of 99). (The people excluded are Labour (40), MBI (4), BNP (1) and two Independents).

This could well change on Friday, although in what way is anyone's guess.

One full day of campaigning to go...

2007-05-01T21:39:00.000Z

...and I've actually seen a couple of signs up on telegraph poles in Morley!

They were both for Grayshon, the Morley South/Central Ward Candidate.

"BNP leaflet allegation are lies"

2007-05-01T17:38:00.000Z

The Morley Borough Independents have repudiated the allegations of the BNP. The following appears on their website:

"
At election time we expect a number of allegations and counter allegations to be made. People often claim credit for the work of others and will attach themselves to the success of others.

However the BNP in Morley have produced a new low.

We can assure you that no leaflet issued by the Morley Borough Independents is either illegal or potentially Libellous. It appears to be nothing more than scaremongering tactics by the BNP.

If you have not received one of the leaflets from the BNP making the allegation, below is a copy of the section of the leaflet in question. The leaflet does not substantiate the claims made and offers readers no indication of what the alleged misdemeanours could be.

There has been no complaint made to West Yorkshire Police about any Morley Borough Independent Leaflet and neither has the matter been reported to the Legal Services Department of Leeds City Council.

The BNP in Morley seem hell bent on trying to silence anyone who speaks out against them, by using their bully boy tactics.
"

You can see it online HERE

Morley South Candidates

2007-04-30T20:35:00.000Z

From last weeks Obtiser, the choices I have on offer within my home Ward for Leeds City Council.

(Click for a more legible version)

Meanwhile, in a large City a few miles away...

2007-04-29T18:29:00.000Z

From my The First post Sunday Paper Digest:

A member of the Labour group on Leeds city council has been caught on tape discussing plans to commit electoral fraud in next week's local elections. Leader Keith Wakefield instructed canvassers to help elderly voters to complete postal ballots and offer to post them, but then destroy those that were for other parties. (Sunday Times)

If this is true than the man is scum and deserves to get banged up and barred from public life for the next twenty years.

This is really going to give them an election boost on Thursday...NOT!

Funny how he didn't mention it as a tactic in Winning the battle for ideas in Leeds: Keith Wakefield writes on the upcoming local elections.

UPDATE: The actual story isn't as simple as the headline suggests, but still very bad. You can see it at Times Online Here and commented on here.

Accusation repeated

2007-04-29T18:10:00.000Z

Another leaflet repeating the accusation, this time in Central Ward.

I ought to say that I've not seen anything illegal or libellous fram any candidate, outside of claiming false credit and the general manure about how the opposition are useless and only they can save the world etc. With the exception of Stewart McArdle, they are all guilty of that.

Accusations of wrongdoing

2007-04-29T18:04:00.000Z

The Town Council elections are starting to get nasty.

Friends of Morleygate have passed me a leaflet from Elmfield Ward (my own Ward, but not the one I live in).

There is an interesting accusation in the spiel. Click on the image below to see a large version:

If true, then the MBIs are in big trouble. If false, the BNP are. However, I would think it very unlikely that either side are daft enough to do this. I'm more inclined to think that the MBIs are going to be used as some sort of stalking horse in some sort of Searchlight accusation and the BNP will apologise afterwards but have made their point.

Town Council List Censorship

2007-04-29T10:40:00.000Z

The Town Council has an online mailing list, called Morleylist. Up until the legendary free speech suppression episode at the March Full Council meeting, I was the Webmaster and list administrator.

Afterwards, I made it clear that if they weren't prepared to listen to me, I had no intention of carrying on with my informal duties and whilst I didn't actually resign from being a Councillor, I chose to (mostly) withdraw from participation as a Member.

(I will cease to be a Member this Thursday of course once the elections take place as I am not re-standing).

Yesterday, I received an email from someone asking me "What happened?" and with the subject LISAGATE. I went and had a look on the site and noticed that ten posts had been deleted, without explanation, by someone with access to the List Management account.

I have seen the posts (they turned up in my daily digest) and they did degenerate into what might be called "inappropriateness" but some of them were simply critical of the Morley Borough Independents.

There is probably an argument that a forum such as this should be suspended during the run-up to an all-out election but there is also an argument against as well.

BNP 'oop (Morley) North

2007-04-28T20:18:00.000Z

Morley Obtiser politics special

2007-04-26T19:45:00.000Z

This week, candidate testimonials for the three Leeds City Council seats have been published.

Bob Evans, the Editor, was so underwhelmed that he editorialised about it.

One thing does strike me, reading through the statements from the candidates this year.
It appears that politicians from all parties are claiming credit for the same things and are also wanting the same things to make Morley a better place.
If that's the case, why is there any need for political parties?

You can read the whole thing here.

Searchlight highlights

2007-04-26T18:51:00.000Z

Our 8 page comic treat, supported by the Daily Mirror and lots of Public Sector Unions.

Even the MBIs hold their nose and link to their websites.

That MP letter in full...

2007-04-26T16:38:00.000Z

(OK, not totally in full, I blotched out my address. There are strange people out there...)

His website that is no longer live can be found HERE and you can't send messages HERE.

I recommend this book for him... or maybe even that one.

Some leftovers...

2007-04-26T16:30:00.000Z

I mentioned some leaflets but never got round to fully uploading them.
The Socialists...

and the blackshirts...

No, we're not, although some people will.

A Town Council leaflet!

2007-04-26T16:24:00.000Z

"...the only group fielding a full team of woman in Topcliffe..."

Sloppy proof reading there!

The other side is a further plug for Terry grayshon on the city elections.

Letter from MP

2007-04-25T20:24:00.000Z

A Houses of Parliament letter awaited me today. CCMP has disclosed all Morley Together correspondence- but only that sent to Morley Town Council!

An accidental or deliberate misunderstanding? Stalling for time hoping for a good outcome on Friday?

The letter finishes with:

"I hope you support the principles of Morley Together. Please let me know."

Don't worry, I will...

Trouble at mill...

2007-04-24T18:24:00.000Z

The following was posted to the Town Council mailing list today, but uploaded as a file, so not many people will see it. (I did though!)

Britannia Quarry

As we are heading towards this years elections, there is the usual blatant electioneering propaganda from the Morley Borough Independents (MBI). A recent press release says: Cllr Robert Finnigan, as chairman of the Quarry Action Group which oversees the quarry... The question to ask here is: how could the quarry be overseen by Councillors who didn't attend for at least 13 months? It is noted in the quarry minutes of 27th September 2005, that neither Cllr Finnigan or any Leeds City Council officers attended the quarry meeting, or sent their apologies. Only one resident and myself turned up on 27/09/05 so the Director of Woodkirk Stone said there was no point in him arranging another meeting date.

Let us move on nine months to the 15th June 2006, when Leeds City Council took Woodkirk Stone to court over a breach in section 151 of the 1980 Highways Act. Once again, I was the only councillor who bothered to attend the court hearing, it appeared Leeds Council officers and the MBI party didn't consider the issue important enough to merit their time. I rallied round to get some non Rein Road residents to attend the court to show support for the council's action. I was asked at court by the Director of Woodkirk Stone if I was prepared to attend any future meetings at the quarry and I said I certainly was!

Move on another three months to the 13th September 2006, I was the spokesman of a three man deputation entitled 'Local Residents concerned about Britannia Quarry Morley' to the full Leeds City Council meeting on 13/09/06 at Leeds Civic Hall, complaining about dust, mud and stones falling from wagons, also the non attendance of Cllr Finnigan, Council officers and other MBI Morley South Councillors at the court or Britannia Quarry meetings.

Cllr Judith Elliott seemed more concerned about keeping face with Woodkirk Stone and her colleagues at Leeds Civic Hall than representing the interests of Rein Road residents as a whole. Cllr Elliott was aided and abetted by Cllr Terry Grayshon, who condemned my neighbours for supporting the deputation and clearly let all the Rein Road residents down by abstaining from voting on the deputation with her saying the quarry issue should never have been brought to Leeds Civic Hall.

Cllr Elliott, who is a Rein Road resident, sent me an invitation letter to attend her first quarry meeting on 25th October 2006, using Morley Town Hall as her contact address. I fail to remember seeing her at any Woodkirk Stone quarry meetings before this date, so it is a travesty for Cllr Elliott to say: We will continue to work with residents and the company with regular meetings to address the legitimate concerns raised.

It seems the Government and Councils aren't the only ones running Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) the MBI party are operating their own PFI scheme but in their case it reads: Propaganda From Independents!

I remember a few years ago some people felt so strongly about an issue printed in the Morley Advertiser that they went round and collected all the offending papers, tore them to pieces, then dumped the lot in front of the Advertiser office in Queen Street.

May I kindly suggest an apology is made by the Morley Borough Independents to the other election candidates, including myself and all those people concerned who have been offended by this electioneering propaganda please.

That by the MBI they did everything - without them they did nothing!

Albert Slingsby

Election news- Morley North

2007-04-24T18:05:00.000Z

My friends in the north advise me that they have had nothing from any Town Council prospectives yet, although they have had the Labour leaflet, shown below.

Ask Colin Challen...

2007-04-23T18:11:00.000Z

I notice that the BNP have been talking to the Electoral Commission about the far left targeting them. (You can see their spin on it here)

Whilst many might think that the BNP are fair game, they do stand legitimately, lots of people vote for them (for whatever reason) and they are obliged to follow the electoral rules, whilst Searchlight are not.

It is now blindingly obvious that Labour are actively supporting Searchlight, Even Ed Balls is out leafleting in Ardsley and the Leeds Searchlight special edition features Morley Together, including David's school (who claim not to have signed up to it).

It will be interesting to see what happens. Needless to say there is nothing about it online other than on the BNP site.

All of the hoo-hah about Freedom of Information and MPs last week spurred me on to make my own request to the MP Constituency Office today. Here it is...

Colin Challen MP
Constituency Office,
2 Commercial Street,
Morley,
LEEDS
LS27 8HY

Dear Mr. Challen,

I enquired via your website enquiries page for further information on the Morley Together campaign on March 8th, the day after the Town Council confirmed participation despite any information being presented to Councillors. My message was as follows:

Hello, I'm a Councillor on Morley Town Council.
Last night Council voted to note the "Morley Together" campaign and agreed to sign up to the principles laid out in it.
However- no supporting documentation was actually provided and discussion was curtailed prematurely by a move to the vote.
Can you please send me a copy of what we have actually pledged to as otherwise all that I have is what I have read in the Morley Observer & Advertiser.
Thank you in advance,

Ian Grey

To date I have had no reply.

I am now writing to make an open government request for all the information to which I am entitled under the freedom of information act. In order to assist you with this request, I am outlining my query as specifically as possible. If however this request is too wide or too unclear, I would be grateful if you could contact me as I understand that under the act, you are required to advise and assist requesters.

The Morley Together Campaign – Letters, correspondence, emails, media (audio/video), presentation materials, notes of telephone conversations etc. sent and received pertinent to this activity.

I understand that under the act, I should be entitled to a response within 20 working days. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Yours Sincerely,

Ian Grey

I look forward to getting some stuff to look at by this time next month.

(Letter template supplied the guardian, of all sources!)

Leaflet checklist- 10 days to go...

2007-04-23T00:01:00.000Z

City Council- (italics- leaflet received, bold- diddly squit!)

GRAYSHON TERRENCE MORLEY BOROUGH INDEPENDENTS
JAMIESON KEELY JOANNE THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY CANDIDATE
LANGHAM DAVID PETER THE LABOUR PARTY CANDIDATE
MEE MIKE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY
SADDLER JAMIE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
SLINGSBY CHARLES ALBERT INDEPENDENT

Town Council- sweet Fanny Adams.

Posters seen around town- Big fat zero.

Election fever- not yet...

2007-04-21T16:17:00.000Z

Driving back through Churwell this afternoon, Karen commented that there was a distinct lack of "Vote for me!" type signs. Indeed I haven't noticed any posters in windows yet. (Not that I've been particularly looking). No rosette wearing, vote touting hopefuls near the Town hall this morning either.

Still, there is next weekend.

The Obtiser has promised candidate biographies next week, along with a list of Town Council hopefuls. (You saw it here first, of course.)

No Town Councillor leaflets through the door yet.

Out for the count...

2007-04-21T11:52:00.000Z

A while back, I did consider asking one of the candidates if I could be a polling agent so that I could be present as an observer, then the City Council offered to pay me to do it! They also asked me if I would consider doing the actual vote at a polling station on the Thursday, but I couldn't justify two days off work.

Today, I received confirmation that I am to be a counting assistant for the Morley North election. (& possibly the Parish/Town Council ones as well, although it isn't actually mentioned).

The count is on Friday 4th May at 10am in Morley town Hall and I will be paid £40 (gross) for doing it. I am also informed that recounts will incur a supplementary fee.

I am obliged to keep some stuff secret, namely names (& register numbers) of electors who have or have not voted, who they have voted for or what the official mark is (that punch/stamp the polling clerk uses just before they hand you the ballot paper.

These are the same undertakings that everyone who participates in the count has to agree to from the clerks to the candidates. Obviously, counting staff must not be employed in any capacity by a candidate or party at the elections. (That probably includes leafleting, but I'm not in the pay of any politicians, paid or unpaid.)

Autorantic virtual moonbat

2007-04-19T23:39:00.000Z

Via the power of the internet, direct access to Morley Labour Party HQ at Unity House.

Meet Excalibur, used for composing letters to the editor.

Hat tip: Bill sticker, who exposed me to it ages ago but I forgot...

Terry Grayshon's leaflet

2007-04-19T22:42:00.000Z

Unsolicited, Cllr Terrence Grayshon Esq. has graciously sent me a soft copy of his election flyer. (He always did have high standards when it comes to sartorial eloquence so I imagine he wants his tome to meet the highest presentation standards)

This is better than my leaflet - the colours are more vibrant and it isn't creased. It doesn't show the printer though- PDQ Printing Services Ltd.

Terry- I'll add a ClustrMap to the site so you can see where in the world people are who are admiring your leaflet.

Schools signing up to Morley Together

2007-04-19T20:12:00.000Z

I had been rather surprised that David's school had signed up to Colin Challen's Morley Together, it hadn't been raised at Governor meetings and wasn't in the Head's report. (The Stephen Lawrence award, by comparison, had been discussed at length).

Anyway, the Head and senior management team inform me that they haven't signed anything, agreed to anything or received any certificates. Apparently CCMP mentioned it on the way out from a Stephen Lawrence event and they expressed some interest to find out more.

So, yet again, all is not quite what it seems.

Newspaper day

2007-04-18T19:15:00.000Z

The letters aren't overly inspiring this week. There are features, however, about Nick Griffin (BNP Chairman) visiting Morley, also a large advertorial about Ed (Blinky) Balls MP who promises to move his office to Morley if elected. (Not a big surprise there, the office rent probably keeps Unity House solvent). The headline is "Minister: I will work hard for independence and a strong economy". The independence he refers to however, isn't from Political Parties, the Union or the European Union, it is just a throwaway remark about us being a proud, independent area, whilst he delivers Searchlight leaflets.

Through the door tonight- Morley Mirror leaflet, from Labour. It has results of recent polling they have conducted: BNP 31% Labour 28%, MBI 22%, Others 17%. (That adds up to 98% so the numeracy of it is rather suspect!) They claim that they have overtaken the independents as the main challenger to the BNP. It is possible that they buck the national trend and bounce back, but I wouldn't bet money on it...

New leaflets

2007-04-17T19:40:00.000Z

I've received a copy of Terry Grayshon's shiny green and white leaflet through the door today, it is awaiting scan.

Meanwhile, over in Morley North, the two flavours of independents have been busy.

Searchlight special

2007-04-16T20:08:00.000Z

A large colour mini-newspaper arrived at home yesterday, a Searchlight special shining a light on un-pleasantries about the BNP and beyond.

There is something a bit rum about this. On the surface it looks Ok (it even has Alan Sugar and Leona endorsing it, along with the Daily Mirror, and...

Amicus Unison T&G TSSA GMB RMT BECTU ANGU

Musicians Union National Union of Mineworkers Connect Usdaw.

(A quick cut & paste from hopenotmate.org.uk, I couldn't be bothered to transfer all the graphics).

So, an extreme but legitimate "right wing" party constrained by election law can be challenged by a rather oddball collective of extreme "left wing" communist anti-facist facists (with tacit Government support from gordon Brown and Colin Challen) and the Electoral Commission can't do anything about it.

New Boots and Panties

2007-04-14T15:59:00.000Z

Join in at the back...

Black shirt, black tie, black jacket black hair... SWEET JEAN VINCENT...!

From our Watermelon MP...

2007-04-14T14:51:00.000Z

Beware the Ides of March...err...April...

2007-04-14T14:28:00.000Z

Yesterday was Friday 13th. I was rather disturbed to have found unexpected spherical, plural objects in my garden.

(The frog is just for effect, by the way!)

What does this foretell? Well, I have examined the entrails and have bad news for Morley:

General Election 2008: Labour Hold!

(Of course, I could be talking a load of...

(Blinky Gif shamelessly stolen from Guido Fawkes!)

MorleyGate

The Town Council Annual Report 2010-2011

So, I finally got round to writing to the Information Commissioner...

More unlawful behaviour

Publish... and be damned?

Widening the net

The simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play

Whoops! It seems that no-one has done an FOI appeal before

The dialogue with the auditor

Mazars speak out

Our two week opportunity

Hidden in plain view

Unhappy with FOI responses

Letter to the Editor

MTC wasting our money

Answers from Morley Town Council

Hidden in plain view

The Audit Commission speaks

Questions to Morley Town Council

Where has all the money gone?

All shall have prizes

Redaction in action

How long does it take to read a file?

Pumpkingate

What's the story with Morley Town Council?

Inspecting Local Authority Accounts

Mr. Micawber would be miserable...

Tea and Rhubarb

What is a liar?

Morley Town Council money

How weak have we become?

(This post appeared at Underdogs bite upwards, a (small L) libertarian blogger of the sort that the Secretary of State for Bread and Circuses would not approve of. I have admired his very cogent analysis of the Righteous but this post came along and stopped me dead.

It is the best blogpost that I have read this year and worthy of much, much wider reading.)

Contacting Councillors - What happened next?

Councillor update

Fresh new look

Rotten Boroughs

(Rotten Boroughs is a Private Eye feature about Councillors who overstep their authority.)

First Post!

We are back!

WE HAVE MOVED!

Time to move on...

Hurrah!

Town Council Notice Board

Sounds expensive...

Letter of complaint

A big name for Morley!

Town Council rather quiet...

Obtiser letters

Ripples from Stewart Mc's letter last week

MBIs help labour shock

Councillor training I'd like to see...

Burning our money

Political punks...

Missing in action...

Uriah Heep

The Abolish Morley Town Council Party?

Worth a look...

Presumptive Press

Back from the edge...

Morley Annual Town meeting...

Other Obtiser articles

Tories put the boot in Gordon Brown

Newspaper Editor thinks MBI need a name change...

The lean green sewing machine

Morley Town Council results

Town Council results

Town Council gets a new notice board

Results- a closer look.

Result!

BNP get a result:...

Guessing the results:

In a final push...

Election day

Politics is getting personal

One full day of campaigning to go...

"BNP leaflet allegation are lies"

Morley South Candidates

Meanwhile, in a large City a few miles away...

Accusation repeated