Council tax rise warning to Keighley ratepayers

Keighley News: Keighley Civic Centre Keighley Civic Centre

Keighley ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for what could be a second consecutive record-breaking tax hike.

Keighley Town Council issued a statement on Tuesday revealing a severe impact on its precept for 2014-15 due to issues over which it claims it has “absolutely no control”.

But the announcement led the town’s MP – Kris Hopkins – to brand the local authority “dysfunctional”.

The council’s 2013-14 budget included a highly controversial 72.6 per cent increase in its precept charge, the lion’s share of which was required to prop up its ailing civic centre.

The North Street building was revealed to be £74,000 in the red in February. That figure had increased to £162,000 by May, after which the council has refused to issue any updates.

This week, the town council office remained tight-lipped about the exact precept increases being planned for the next financial year. But the civic centre debt will now be added to two more huge drains on the public purse.

Keighley Mayor Councillor Sally Walker revealed it faces additional losses of up to £73,541 due to Government funding changes and the behaviour of a campaign group.

She said: “The Government says £3.3 billion will be made available for 2014-2015 to mitigate the impact of localised council tax support schemes on the council tax base.

“This includes funding for town and parish councils. Bradford District Council has agreed to pass down funding, but will make a 20 per cent reduction, equating to a loss of £23,541 to Keighley Town Council.

“Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests.

“The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.”

But the announcement has been met with widespread criticism.

Keighley MP Kris Hopkins said: “Bradford Council has difficult decisions to make and I often don’t agree with them.

“But this shouldn’t provide another excuse for Keighley Town Council to burden residents with what is effectively double taxation.

“Dealing with challenges from the public is part of democracy. To suggest responding to extra e-mails will lead to an increase of £50,000 on its base budget demonstrates how utterly dysfunctional Keighley Town Council has become.

“Rather than place a greater financial burden on Keighley people, the town council should examine its salary base, its assets and its liabilities, including the £1.1 million loan it took out to purchase a white elephant in the shape of the civic centre.”

Ingrow resident and Cavetown Council spokesman, Elizabeth Mitchell, said: “We’re a group of parishioners who want the town council to be accountable, transparent and honest.

“What we’ve found in the town council, in terms of its finances, we’ve passed on to the proper authorities. Those authorities now need to investigate this, and we’ve no control over that.”

 

Comments (352)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:18am Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Seems somewhat surprising that the Council can be making predictions about the necessary increase in next years Precept given that they are yet to publish the finalised Accounts from last financial year.
That the External Auditors have not yet given the Council the all clear shows that the ones presented as a record by the Town council do not seem to be an accurate portrayal of the fiscal policies meeting the legal requirements of the council.
To then further attempt to pass the blame of any future rise on the conduct of a group of citizens exercising their legal and democratic rights, shows what turmoil this Sally Walker led ensemble is really in.

Perhaps they should hold of making Public comments until they have a report from the External Auditors which will give a more accurate portrayal of what they have and what they need to extract from the public to continue pouring into the disastrous Civic Centre.
Seems somewhat surprising that the Council can be making predictions about the necessary increase in next years Precept given that they are yet to publish the finalised Accounts from last financial year. That the External Auditors have not yet given the Council the all clear shows that the ones presented as a record by the Town council do not seem to be an accurate portrayal of the fiscal policies meeting the legal requirements of the council. To then further attempt to pass the blame of any future rise on the conduct of a group of citizens exercising their legal and democratic rights, shows what turmoil this Sally Walker led ensemble is really in. Perhaps they should hold of making Public comments until they have a report from the External Auditors which will give a more accurate portrayal of what they have and what they need to extract from the public to continue pouring into the disastrous Civic Centre. Always a 708 Skinhead

7:56am Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Another point worth considering for mayor Walker and the rest of the council is that of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill currently before Parliament and already at the Report stage.
Once this Bill achieves Royal Ascent the role of Town & Parish Councils will be brought into line with that of District Councils.
What this means councillors, as it seems that most of you take little interest in the relevance of such things, is that if the council proposes a Precept Rise which is over a predetermined cap level, then the approval of any such rise will depend on the outcome of a Council Tax Referendum.
So essentially councillors, and try to understand this if you have the capacity, is that if your Precept Rise surpasses the preset cap level, then it will require the approval of the Electorate for you to extract these funds from the People.
The People who you chose to inflict a record breaking deficit on last year.
The People you have chosen to ignore, insult and make misleading statements to throughout this year.
Now councillors, consider the implications of these People rejecting what will be essentially, your Precept Rise Request from them, as opposed to last years extortion.

Under the Localism Act, Local Government, as with any form of Business is a constantly evolving animal. Failing to recognise changes in the environment quickly enough quickly leads to Extinction.

Tick Tock
Another point worth considering for mayor Walker and the rest of the council is that of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill currently before Parliament and already at the Report stage. Once this Bill achieves Royal Ascent the role of Town & Parish Councils will be brought into line with that of District Councils. What this means councillors, as it seems that most of you take little interest in the relevance of such things, is that if the council proposes a Precept Rise which is over a predetermined cap level, then the approval of any such rise will depend on the outcome of a Council Tax Referendum. So essentially councillors, and try to understand this if you have the capacity, is that if your Precept Rise surpasses the preset cap level, then it will require the approval of the Electorate for you to extract these funds from the People. The People who you chose to inflict a record breaking deficit on last year. The People you have chosen to ignore, insult and make misleading statements to throughout this year. Now councillors, consider the implications of these People rejecting what will be essentially, your Precept Rise Request from them, as opposed to last years extortion. Under the Localism Act, Local Government, as with any form of Business is a constantly evolving animal. Failing to recognise changes in the environment quickly enough quickly leads to Extinction. Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead

8:33am Thu 19 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Quote:
“The North Street building was revealed to be £74,000 in the red in February. That figure had increased to £162,000 by May, after which the council has refused to issue any updates.”

I am not surprised KTC has refused to issue any update, however we now know the civic centre deficit for financial year ending 2013 was £252,565. If any one wishes they can take a look at the councils 2013/14 budget on their website and see the deficit will be £179,534 if nothing changes.

Quote:
“Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests.

In our democracy any individual, or group, has the right to ask for information from it's governing bodies, it does not have to be representative. There is nothing in the F.O.I Act that states one must be a representative before attaining information. That concerned parishioners have come together to bring transparency and accountability from their council is also part of our democracy. Has Cllr S Walker any problems with that?

Quote:
“The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.”

Cllr S Walker, that many objections were raise about you council's accounts is an indictment on your council, not on those who have raised the objections, because Cllr S Walker, it is this simple, `No Problems No Objections.` Therefore it is your council that is costing the parishioners a possible £30,000 to £50,000, and we can add the purported self-financing civic centre, that isn't, which is draining precept money faster than a black hole sucks in matter.

Any why, after six months, are the auditors still investigating you council's accounts if all is in order? Cllr S Walker, try opening a coffee shop in the hardly visited civic centre and name it not Starbucks, but `Pass The Buck`, as this is what your council is now trying to do. It will not work, the public are now more aware of how dysfunctional, and costly, your council is.
Quote: “The North Street building was revealed to be £74,000 in the red in February. That figure had increased to £162,000 by May, after which the council has refused to issue any updates.” I am not surprised KTC has refused to issue any update, however we now know the civic centre deficit for financial year ending 2013 was £252,565. If any one wishes they can take a look at the councils 2013/14 budget on their website and see the deficit will be £179,534 if nothing changes. Quote: “Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests. In our democracy any individual, or group, has the right to ask for information from it's governing bodies, it does not have to be representative. There is nothing in the F.O.I Act that states one must be a representative before attaining information. That concerned parishioners have come together to bring transparency and accountability from their council is also part of our democracy. Has Cllr S Walker any problems with that? Quote: “The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.” Cllr S Walker, that many objections were raise about you council's accounts is an indictment on your council, not on those who have raised the objections, because Cllr S Walker, it is this simple, `No Problems No Objections.` Therefore it is your council that is costing the parishioners a possible £30,000 to £50,000, and we can add the purported self-financing civic centre, that isn't, which is draining precept money faster than a black hole sucks in matter. Any why, after six months, are the auditors still investigating you council's accounts if all is in order? Cllr S Walker, try opening a coffee shop in the hardly visited civic centre and name it not Starbucks, but `Pass The Buck`, as this is what your council is now trying to do. It will not work, the public are now more aware of how dysfunctional, and costly, your council is. Graham Forsyth

8:57am Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Another point worth considering for mayor walker and the rest of incumbent council is that of their status as a Quality Council.
To maintain this highly regarded status a Town or Parish Council must present a Published set of Approved Accounts within 6 months of the Accounting Date. (a 7 month transitional date is allowed).
Not being an expert on these matters, (but I would assume that the mayor and the council employed clerk as Responsible Financial Officer would be), I believe the Accounting Date in the case of Keighley Town council is the end of March. By my calculations that would put the need for a set of Published Accounts to be the end of September or October respectively.
Of course, I am no expert on such matters but if both my dates and calculations are correct then Keighley Town council no longer enjoys the status of a Quality Council.
I would very much like to hear from any serving councillor where the mistakes are in my understanding of this requirement, or my calculations of time and dates.
Failing this, I would like to hear an explanation as to why the KTC website still displays the Quality Council Logo if it no longer meets the requirements for doing so?

Simon Mitchell
Another point worth considering for mayor walker and the rest of incumbent council is that of their status as a Quality Council. To maintain this highly regarded status a Town or Parish Council must present a Published set of Approved Accounts within 6 months of the Accounting Date. (a 7 month transitional date is allowed). Not being an expert on these matters, (but I would assume that the mayor and the council employed clerk as Responsible Financial Officer would be), I believe the Accounting Date in the case of Keighley Town council is the end of March. By my calculations that would put the need for a set of Published Accounts to be the end of September or October respectively. Of course, I am no expert on such matters but if both my dates and calculations are correct then Keighley Town council no longer enjoys the status of a Quality Council. I would very much like to hear from any serving councillor where the mistakes are in my understanding of this requirement, or my calculations of time and dates. Failing this, I would like to hear an explanation as to why the KTC website still displays the Quality Council Logo if it no longer meets the requirements for doing so? Simon Mitchell Always a 708 Skinhead

9:22am Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

mayor Walker says-
“Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests.

“The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.”

To ensure that not only mayor Walker and the rest of the Councillors understand not only why Cavetown Council has a legally sanctioned right to exist, but also why the above statement is yet another false and misleading Public comment from a serving member of this council, I will reproduce a direct quote from correspondence I have received from the DCLG.


Department for Communities and Local Government
Peter Emechete
Accountability & Transparency Division
"I will reiterate that local authorities are independent bodies, accountable to their electorate for the decisions they make rather than to central government and must act within their statutory powers. However, this does not mean there are no mechanisms for addressing any uncovered unlawful activities by councillors and council officials or that their decisions cannot be challenged."


As you can see mayor Walker, not only is Cavetown acting within the boundries of the legal system, but furthermore, it is cureently the only means by which a council such as Keighley Town council is being held to Account.

If you have issue with this then you may well welcome the changes to the legislation for Town and Parish councils which will see the Accountability of these councils being overseen directly by the Secrety of State for Local Government.
Currently this position is held by Eric Pickles MP. A former Keighleuy boy, who last commented on the actions of KTC by stating that the council had "Lost the Plot".
And he wasn't referring to the previous sale of Skipton Road Allotment Land or the unsanctioned attempted sale by Brian Morris of the Allotment Plots at Hog Holes when he said this.

Tick Tock
mayor Walker says- “Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests. “The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.” To ensure that not only mayor Walker and the rest of the Councillors understand not only why Cavetown Council has a legally sanctioned right to exist, but also why the above statement is yet another false and misleading Public comment from a serving member of this council, I will reproduce a direct quote from correspondence I have received from the DCLG. Department for Communities and Local Government Peter Emechete Accountability & Transparency Division "I will reiterate that local authorities are independent bodies, accountable to their electorate for the decisions they make rather than to central government and must act within their statutory powers. However, this does not mean there are no mechanisms for addressing any uncovered unlawful activities by councillors and council officials or that their decisions cannot be challenged." As you can see mayor Walker, not only is Cavetown acting within the boundries of the legal system, but furthermore, it is cureently the only means by which a council such as Keighley Town council is being held to Account. If you have issue with this then you may well welcome the changes to the legislation for Town and Parish councils which will see the Accountability of these councils being overseen directly by the Secrety of State for Local Government. Currently this position is held by Eric Pickles MP. A former Keighleuy boy, who last commented on the actions of KTC by stating that the council had "Lost the Plot". And he wasn't referring to the previous sale of Skipton Road Allotment Land or the unsanctioned attempted sale by Brian Morris of the Allotment Plots at Hog Holes when he said this. Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead

10:17am Thu 19 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Cllr S Walker, do you recall the Dales Pony your council purchased for £1,800, but found it was skittish around children and then sold off at a loss?
Do you remember purchasing Bella to replace it for £3,500, only to sell that off at a loss? And do you know how much the stabling fees and pet insurance was costing?

Is the profit from the cafe you are now having to pay someone to run covering the monthly £1,327.70 for the catering equipment lease repayment, and the monthly £1.013.96 for the furniture lease repayment? I apologise for not having any payment in excess of £500 of a more recent date than May 2013, from which these figures were taken, but your council has failed to place any more on your website beyond that date. Maybe another letter to the K.N explaining why would be helpful.

Has your council decide to provide all the councillors with the concealed investigative report into Financial and Staffing Irregularities? If not, they, along with the public can find it here.
https://docs.google.
com/file/d/0ByE4D40i
mmo-Tkdmb3VkdURKaEk/
edit?pli=1

Has your council any statement to make regarding the sworn declaration made by Mr Grant Doyle in which serious allegations are made? Mr Doyle has placed his declaration in the public domain here.
https://docs.google.
com/file/d/0ByE4D40i
mmo-aDVfTGFNaEdxZnM/
edit?pli=1


Can your council explain why the tenants have left the civic centre?

Can you inform the parishioners of Keighley were the money will come from to make up the loss of rental income due to the departed tenants?

Can you explain if the role of R.F.O, Responsible Finance Officer if split from the role of the town clerk, as is currently being discussed, will this mean a reduction in wages for the clerk? And if split, will it mean employing someone to take on the role of R.F.O, and what would be the expected payment for someone undertaking this role if so?

Cllr S Walker, if as you says the council : “faces additional losses of up to £73,541 due to Government funding changes and the behaviour of a campaign group.” Does this mean either that £30,000 or £50,000 has to be deducted from the £73,541? If £50,000 is deducted that leave government funding changes of £23,541. That is less than it is costing your council to hire the catering equipment and furniture for one year.

The problems Cllr S Walker lie within your own council.
Cllr S Walker, do you recall the Dales Pony your council purchased for £1,800, but found it was skittish around children and then sold off at a loss? Do you remember purchasing Bella to replace it for £3,500, only to sell that off at a loss? And do you know how much the stabling fees and pet insurance was costing? Is the profit from the cafe you are now having to pay someone to run covering the monthly £1,327.70 for the catering equipment lease repayment, and the monthly £1.013.96 for the furniture lease repayment? I apologise for not having any payment in excess of £500 of a more recent date than May 2013, from which these figures were taken, but your council has failed to place any more on your website beyond that date. Maybe another letter to the K.N explaining why would be helpful. Has your council decide to provide all the councillors with the concealed investigative report into Financial and Staffing Irregularities? If not, they, along with the public can find it here. https://docs.google. com/file/d/0ByE4D40i mmo-Tkdmb3VkdURKaEk/ edit?pli=1 Has your council any statement to make regarding the sworn declaration made by Mr Grant Doyle in which serious allegations are made? Mr Doyle has placed his declaration in the public domain here. https://docs.google. com/file/d/0ByE4D40i mmo-aDVfTGFNaEdxZnM/ edit?pli=1 Can your council explain why the tenants have left the civic centre? Can you inform the parishioners of Keighley were the money will come from to make up the loss of rental income due to the departed tenants? Can you explain if the role of R.F.O, Responsible Finance Officer if split from the role of the town clerk, as is currently being discussed, will this mean a reduction in wages for the clerk? And if split, will it mean employing someone to take on the role of R.F.O, and what would be the expected payment for someone undertaking this role if so? Cllr S Walker, if as you says the council : “faces additional losses of up to £73,541 due to Government funding changes and the behaviour of a campaign group.” Does this mean either that £30,000 or £50,000 has to be deducted from the £73,541? If £50,000 is deducted that leave government funding changes of £23,541. That is less than it is costing your council to hire the catering equipment and furniture for one year. The problems Cllr S Walker lie within your own council. Graham Forsyth

10:30am Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

This Press Statement from mayor Walker really seems to ask more questions than it does provide answers Mr Forsyth.
So much that the Council can now address thanks to this Public Statement by the mayor.
Obviously as they are legally committed, as are all Town and Parish councils, to the seven Nolan Principles, I have no doubt that not only mayor Walker but also others of her entourage will now be more than willing to provide some of these answers to the questions raised.

'Nolan Principles'.
These are:

selflessness:
holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or other friends;

integrity:
holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties;

objectivity:
in carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit;

accountability:
holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office;

openness:
holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands;

honesty:
holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest;

leadership:
holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

Perhaps she can start by releasing a statement explaining which, if any of the Nolan Principles have been adhered to at KTC?
This Press Statement from mayor Walker really seems to ask more questions than it does provide answers Mr Forsyth. So much that the Council can now address thanks to this Public Statement by the mayor. Obviously as they are legally committed, as are all Town and Parish councils, to the seven Nolan Principles, I have no doubt that not only mayor Walker but also others of her entourage will now be more than willing to provide some of these answers to the questions raised. 'Nolan Principles'. These are: selflessness: holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or other friends; integrity: holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties; objectivity: in carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit; accountability: holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office; openness: holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands; honesty: holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest; leadership: holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example. Perhaps she can start by releasing a statement explaining which, if any of the Nolan Principles have been adhered to at KTC? Always a 708 Skinhead

10:46am Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

She can start with these ones relating to item 4 of the Nolan Principles-
accountability:
holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office;

How is it that you dare to make a Public statement that any increase in next years Precept is somehow related to the actions of a group of Citizens who have exercised their Legal Rights?

Are you simply naive, ignorant or acting in a manner similar to those displayed by councillor Morris of self preservation?
She can start with these ones relating to item 4 of the Nolan Principles- accountability: holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office; How is it that you dare to make a Public statement that any increase in next years Precept is somehow related to the actions of a group of Citizens who have exercised their Legal Rights? Are you simply naive, ignorant or acting in a manner similar to those displayed by councillor Morris of self preservation? Always a 708 Skinhead

11:02am Thu 19 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

Be under no illusion tax payer, any additional increase by this dysfunctional council is on top of the 72.6% of last year as well. Months ago when it became apparent that last year's Civic Centre deficit of over £252,000, was going to be the same, if not more, this year, our MP offered the council help. The hierarchy of the council, snubbed his offer with a derisory letter and Cllr Graham Mitchell called members of the public who had raised their concerns with our MP as 'Mad Swivel Eyed Loons'.
This is the contempt that Cllr Graham Mitchell and his cohort, hold both the electorate and the MP in.
Instead of mayor walker berating the public, perhaps she should try to claim back the money from the Police Experience that they never paid back. There were three serving councillors on its board, one a magistrate, one an ex police officer and one the chair of finance. Why doesn't s walker claim back the money from those in Cllr Pedley's report into apparent Financial and Staffing Matters. Why doesn't s walker look into allegations of bribes being offered. Why doesn't s walker look into why Cllr Brian Morris put up the allotment land at Hog Holes for sale, without telling his committee, his council or the Secretary of State. Why is she not looking at the non compliance with the Localism Act 2011, which forbids the council to trade, unless through a registered company or similar. There is good reason for this, because the council trades at a loss and if it were a company it would be bankrupt. Sally Walker your term as mayor has brought disgrace to this town.
Be under no illusion tax payer, any additional increase by this dysfunctional council is on top of the 72.6% of last year as well. Months ago when it became apparent that last year's Civic Centre deficit of over £252,000, was going to be the same, if not more, this year, our MP offered the council help. The hierarchy of the council, snubbed his offer with a derisory letter and Cllr Graham Mitchell called members of the public who had raised their concerns with our MP as 'Mad Swivel Eyed Loons'. This is the contempt that Cllr Graham Mitchell and his cohort, hold both the electorate and the MP in. Instead of mayor walker berating the public, perhaps she should try to claim back the money from the Police Experience that they never paid back. There were three serving councillors on its board, one a magistrate, one an ex police officer and one the chair of finance. Why doesn't s walker claim back the money from those in Cllr Pedley's report into apparent Financial and Staffing Matters. Why doesn't s walker look into allegations of bribes being offered. Why doesn't s walker look into why Cllr Brian Morris put up the allotment land at Hog Holes for sale, without telling his committee, his council or the Secretary of State. Why is she not looking at the non compliance with the Localism Act 2011, which forbids the council to trade, unless through a registered company or similar. There is good reason for this, because the council trades at a loss and if it were a company it would be bankrupt. Sally Walker your term as mayor has brought disgrace to this town. Elizabeth Mitchell

12:05pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Silly Sally may also wish to take noet of the inclusion of the following in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill-

((5)Regulations under this section may, in particular, amend or repeal any
provision of—
(a)the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960,
(b)Part 5A or section 228 (inspection of documents) of the Local
Government Act 1972.

if she is not sure of the relevance of this, then perhaps she can ask the RFO for a more fuller explanation. (I suggest before she makes any more misguided comments on camera at any future meetings).
Tick Tock
Silly Sally may also wish to take noet of the inclusion of the following in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill- ((5)Regulations under this section may, in particular, amend or repeal any provision of— (a)the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, (b)Part 5A or section 228 (inspection of documents) of the Local Government Act 1972. if she is not sure of the relevance of this, then perhaps she can ask the RFO for a more fuller explanation. (I suggest before she makes any more misguided comments on camera at any future meetings). Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead

12:45pm Thu 19 Dec 13

qweasd says...

Just to clarify.
The external auditors have not yet looked at the accounts for 2012/2013, all they have done to date is follow up on numerous and off the cuff accusations made by this self-appointed anarchist group known as cavetown, who have but one goal. Close the Civic Centre at all costs because they don’t agree with it.

If anyone believes this group are doing this for the benefit of the residents of Keighley then you have been blinded by smoke and mirrors. This group have manipulated figures to make the Council look bad but have never been proven right on any occasion. I think this is why they continue to bombard the Auditors with so much paperwork because it is preventing them from actually looking at the accounts. Expert in Council Accounts the Independent internal Auditors found no irregularities but cavetown say they know better as they have armchair accountants who can add 1 + 1 = 3.
When the external Auditors finally comeback with the same findings Cavetown won’t agree with them also. I believe when this whole debacle is over the Council will be vindicated.

Will the ratepayers of Keighley get an apology from cavetown for the unnecessary cost they have incurred on them? Not in a million years.

If cavetown are what they claim to be then stop sending useless misguided information to the Auditors and let them do the job the ratepayers of Keighley are paying them for. You have cost ratepayers up to £50,000 so far for your prejudices when will you stop, you complain about the cost on the precept, £50,000 will now have to be added to that, this is a direct cost that is firmly at the feet of cavetown and its ongoing vendetta. Please don’t try justify this by saying it’s the price of democracy.
Just to clarify. The external auditors have not yet looked at the accounts for 2012/2013, all they have done to date is follow up on numerous and off the cuff accusations made by this self-appointed anarchist group known as cavetown, who have but one goal. Close the Civic Centre at all costs because they don’t agree with it. If anyone believes this group are doing this for the benefit of the residents of Keighley then you have been blinded by smoke and mirrors. This group have manipulated figures to make the Council look bad but have never been proven right on any occasion. I think this is why they continue to bombard the Auditors with so much paperwork because it is preventing them from actually looking at the accounts. Expert in Council Accounts the Independent internal Auditors found no irregularities but cavetown say they know better as they have armchair accountants who can add 1 + 1 = 3. When the external Auditors finally comeback with the same findings Cavetown won’t agree with them also. I believe when this whole debacle is over the Council will be vindicated. Will the ratepayers of Keighley get an apology from cavetown for the unnecessary cost they have incurred on them? Not in a million years. If cavetown are what they claim to be then stop sending useless misguided information to the Auditors and let them do the job the ratepayers of Keighley are paying them for. You have cost ratepayers up to £50,000 so far for your prejudices when will you stop, you complain about the cost on the precept, £50,000 will now have to be added to that, this is a direct cost that is firmly at the feet of cavetown and its ongoing vendetta. Please don’t try justify this by saying it’s the price of democracy. qweasd

12:50pm Thu 19 Dec 13

qweasd says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Seems somewhat surprising that the Council can be making predictions about the necessary increase in next years Precept given that they are yet to publish the finalised Accounts from last financial year.
That the External Auditors have not yet given the Council the all clear shows that the ones presented as a record by the Town council do not seem to be an accurate portrayal of the fiscal policies meeting the legal requirements of the council.
To then further attempt to pass the blame of any future rise on the conduct of a group of citizens exercising their legal and democratic rights, shows what turmoil this Sally Walker led ensemble is really in.

Perhaps they should hold of making Public comments until they have a report from the External Auditors which will give a more accurate portrayal of what they have and what they need to extract from the public to continue pouring into the disastrous Civic Centre.
The figure £30,000 to £50,000 was from the External Auditors, not from a crystal ball. This is a direct cost for the work they are doing on the information sent by cavetown. Not work done on the accounts for the Council.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Seems somewhat surprising that the Council can be making predictions about the necessary increase in next years Precept given that they are yet to publish the finalised Accounts from last financial year. That the External Auditors have not yet given the Council the all clear shows that the ones presented as a record by the Town council do not seem to be an accurate portrayal of the fiscal policies meeting the legal requirements of the council. To then further attempt to pass the blame of any future rise on the conduct of a group of citizens exercising their legal and democratic rights, shows what turmoil this Sally Walker led ensemble is really in. Perhaps they should hold of making Public comments until they have a report from the External Auditors which will give a more accurate portrayal of what they have and what they need to extract from the public to continue pouring into the disastrous Civic Centre.[/p][/quote]The figure £30,000 to £50,000 was from the External Auditors, not from a crystal ball. This is a direct cost for the work they are doing on the information sent by cavetown. Not work done on the accounts for the Council. qweasd

12:53pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Thanks qweasd. Can you provide any evidence to support your claims?
Perhaps just one morsel of documented evidence which not only verifies your claim that Cavetown has cost Keighley 50 grand but also which states that the Internal Auditors have vouched for the financial statements of KTC?
One more thing Qweasd, how would you know all this unless you were privy to council documentation or the inner workings of the council which , as far as not only members of the Public, but it would seem the Press are not yet eligible to gain access to?
Based on this, it is more than fair to presume you are a councillor posting under an assumed name.
That being the case, would you care to now supply your real name?
As I have no qualms with the content of my own posts here, I am more than happy to supply mine.
Simon Mitchell
Acting as a member of Cavetown Council- a Law abidin,g Legally sanctioned group of concerned citizens.
And yours qweasd?
Thanks qweasd. Can you provide any evidence to support your claims? Perhaps just one morsel of documented evidence which not only verifies your claim that Cavetown has cost Keighley 50 grand but also which states that the Internal Auditors have vouched for the financial statements of KTC? One more thing Qweasd, how would you know all this unless you were privy to council documentation or the inner workings of the council which , as far as not only members of the Public, but it would seem the Press are not yet eligible to gain access to? Based on this, it is more than fair to presume you are a councillor posting under an assumed name. That being the case, would you care to now supply your real name? As I have no qualms with the content of my own posts here, I am more than happy to supply mine. Simon Mitchell Acting as a member of Cavetown Council- a Law abidin,g Legally sanctioned group of concerned citizens. And yours qweasd? Always a 708 Skinhead

12:55pm Thu 19 Dec 13

qweasd says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Another point worth considering for mayor Walker and the rest of the council is that of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill currently before Parliament and already at the Report stage.
Once this Bill achieves Royal Ascent the role of Town & Parish Councils will be brought into line with that of District Councils.
What this means councillors, as it seems that most of you take little interest in the relevance of such things, is that if the council proposes a Precept Rise which is over a predetermined cap level, then the approval of any such rise will depend on the outcome of a Council Tax Referendum.
So essentially councillors, and try to understand this if you have the capacity, is that if your Precept Rise surpasses the preset cap level, then it will require the approval of the Electorate for you to extract these funds from the People.
The People who you chose to inflict a record breaking deficit on last year.
The People you have chosen to ignore, insult and make misleading statements to throughout this year.
Now councillors, consider the implications of these People rejecting what will be essentially, your Precept Rise Request from them, as opposed to last years extortion.

Under the Localism Act, Local Government, as with any form of Business is a constantly evolving animal. Failing to recognise changes in the environment quickly enough quickly leads to Extinction.

Tick Tock
Anyone know where the District Council get their monies from to pay for their buildings.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Another point worth considering for mayor Walker and the rest of the council is that of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill currently before Parliament and already at the Report stage. Once this Bill achieves Royal Ascent the role of Town & Parish Councils will be brought into line with that of District Councils. What this means councillors, as it seems that most of you take little interest in the relevance of such things, is that if the council proposes a Precept Rise which is over a predetermined cap level, then the approval of any such rise will depend on the outcome of a Council Tax Referendum. So essentially councillors, and try to understand this if you have the capacity, is that if your Precept Rise surpasses the preset cap level, then it will require the approval of the Electorate for you to extract these funds from the People. The People who you chose to inflict a record breaking deficit on last year. The People you have chosen to ignore, insult and make misleading statements to throughout this year. Now councillors, consider the implications of these People rejecting what will be essentially, your Precept Rise Request from them, as opposed to last years extortion. Under the Localism Act, Local Government, as with any form of Business is a constantly evolving animal. Failing to recognise changes in the environment quickly enough quickly leads to Extinction. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Anyone know where the District Council get their monies from to pay for their buildings. qweasd

12:59pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

One more thing councillor qweasd. If you find the current situation by which Keighley Town Council is responsible to the Electorate, and also the relevance of this with regards to not only the Nolan Principles but also the Legislation sanctioning the legitimacy of Cavetwon Council, then what are your thoughts on the current Local Audit and Accountancy Bill going through Parliament as we speak?
Do you welcome the changes councillor?

Most interested in hearing your response.

Tick Tock
One more thing councillor qweasd. If you find the current situation by which Keighley Town Council is responsible to the Electorate, and also the relevance of this with regards to not only the Nolan Principles but also the Legislation sanctioning the legitimacy of Cavetwon Council, then what are your thoughts on the current Local Audit and Accountancy Bill going through Parliament as we speak? Do you welcome the changes councillor? Most interested in hearing your response. Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead

1:03pm Thu 19 Dec 13

qweasd says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
Quote:
“The North Street building was revealed to be £74,000 in the red in February. That figure had increased to £162,000 by May, after which the council has refused to issue any updates.”

I am not surprised KTC has refused to issue any update, however we now know the civic centre deficit for financial year ending 2013 was £252,565. If any one wishes they can take a look at the councils 2013/14 budget on their website and see the deficit will be £179,534 if nothing changes.

Quote:
“Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests.

In our democracy any individual, or group, has the right to ask for information from it's governing bodies, it does not have to be representative. There is nothing in the F.O.I Act that states one must be a representative before attaining information. That concerned parishioners have come together to bring transparency and accountability from their council is also part of our democracy. Has Cllr S Walker any problems with that?

Quote:
“The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.”

Cllr S Walker, that many objections were raise about you council's accounts is an indictment on your council, not on those who have raised the objections, because Cllr S Walker, it is this simple, `No Problems No Objections.` Therefore it is your council that is costing the parishioners a possible £30,000 to £50,000, and we can add the purported self-financing civic centre, that isn't, which is draining precept money faster than a black hole sucks in matter.

Any why, after six months, are the auditors still investigating you council's accounts if all is in order? Cllr S Walker, try opening a coffee shop in the hardly visited civic centre and name it not Starbucks, but `Pass The Buck`, as this is what your council is now trying to do. It will not work, the public are now more aware of how dysfunctional, and costly, your council is.
As you are one of the cavetown anarchists you are well aware the external auditors are looking at your complaints and have not looked at the accounts as yet, you and your group are the reason the accounts are late. Interesting to note only members of cavetown have objected, that should tell you something. The cost is down to you and your 8 cohorts, shame you don’t have the dignity to accept responsibility for your actions. Suppose that’s to be expected.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: Quote: “The North Street building was revealed to be £74,000 in the red in February. That figure had increased to £162,000 by May, after which the council has refused to issue any updates.” I am not surprised KTC has refused to issue any update, however we now know the civic centre deficit for financial year ending 2013 was £252,565. If any one wishes they can take a look at the councils 2013/14 budget on their website and see the deficit will be £179,534 if nothing changes. Quote: “Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests. In our democracy any individual, or group, has the right to ask for information from it's governing bodies, it does not have to be representative. There is nothing in the F.O.I Act that states one must be a representative before attaining information. That concerned parishioners have come together to bring transparency and accountability from their council is also part of our democracy. Has Cllr S Walker any problems with that? Quote: “The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.” Cllr S Walker, that many objections were raise about you council's accounts is an indictment on your council, not on those who have raised the objections, because Cllr S Walker, it is this simple, `No Problems No Objections.` Therefore it is your council that is costing the parishioners a possible £30,000 to £50,000, and we can add the purported self-financing civic centre, that isn't, which is draining precept money faster than a black hole sucks in matter. Any why, after six months, are the auditors still investigating you council's accounts if all is in order? Cllr S Walker, try opening a coffee shop in the hardly visited civic centre and name it not Starbucks, but `Pass The Buck`, as this is what your council is now trying to do. It will not work, the public are now more aware of how dysfunctional, and costly, your council is.[/p][/quote]As you are one of the cavetown anarchists you are well aware the external auditors are looking at your complaints and have not looked at the accounts as yet, you and your group are the reason the accounts are late. Interesting to note only members of cavetown have objected, that should tell you something. The cost is down to you and your 8 cohorts, shame you don’t have the dignity to accept responsibility for your actions. Suppose that’s to be expected. qweasd

1:06pm Thu 19 Dec 13

qweasd says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Another point worth considering for mayor walker and the rest of incumbent council is that of their status as a Quality Council.
To maintain this highly regarded status a Town or Parish Council must present a Published set of Approved Accounts within 6 months of the Accounting Date. (a 7 month transitional date is allowed).
Not being an expert on these matters, (but I would assume that the mayor and the council employed clerk as Responsible Financial Officer would be), I believe the Accounting Date in the case of Keighley Town council is the end of March. By my calculations that would put the need for a set of Published Accounts to be the end of September or October respectively.
Of course, I am no expert on such matters but if both my dates and calculations are correct then Keighley Town council no longer enjoys the status of a Quality Council.
I would very much like to hear from any serving councillor where the mistakes are in my understanding of this requirement, or my calculations of time and dates.
Failing this, I would like to hear an explanation as to why the KTC website still displays the Quality Council Logo if it no longer meets the requirements for doing so?

Simon Mitchell
You for once are correct. The same response to you as Forsyth
As you are one of the cavetown anarchists you are well aware the external auditors are looking at your complaints and have not looked at the accounts as yet, you and your group are the reason the accounts are late. Interesting to note only members of cavetown have objected, that should tell you something. The cost is down to you and your 8 cohorts, shame you don’t have the dignity to accept responsibility for your actions. Suppose that’s to be expected.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Another point worth considering for mayor walker and the rest of incumbent council is that of their status as a Quality Council. To maintain this highly regarded status a Town or Parish Council must present a Published set of Approved Accounts within 6 months of the Accounting Date. (a 7 month transitional date is allowed). Not being an expert on these matters, (but I would assume that the mayor and the council employed clerk as Responsible Financial Officer would be), I believe the Accounting Date in the case of Keighley Town council is the end of March. By my calculations that would put the need for a set of Published Accounts to be the end of September or October respectively. Of course, I am no expert on such matters but if both my dates and calculations are correct then Keighley Town council no longer enjoys the status of a Quality Council. I would very much like to hear from any serving councillor where the mistakes are in my understanding of this requirement, or my calculations of time and dates. Failing this, I would like to hear an explanation as to why the KTC website still displays the Quality Council Logo if it no longer meets the requirements for doing so? Simon Mitchell[/p][/quote]You for once are correct. The same response to you as Forsyth As you are one of the cavetown anarchists you are well aware the external auditors are looking at your complaints and have not looked at the accounts as yet, you and your group are the reason the accounts are late. Interesting to note only members of cavetown have objected, that should tell you something. The cost is down to you and your 8 cohorts, shame you don’t have the dignity to accept responsibility for your actions. Suppose that’s to be expected. qweasd

1:18pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

qweasd, all you have done with your previous 2 posts is establish the fact that you are indeed a councillor. The public might well now ask- Why is it that this councillor is posting these comments without revealing their real identity?
Once again I will refer you to the Nolan Principles particularly these 2-

openness:
holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands;

honesty:
holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest;

May be this is why you are reluctant to reveal which disgraced councillor you reallly are.

My guesses would be one of the following

Brian Morris
Tony Wright
Richard Graham Mitchell
Micheal Westerman
George Metcalfe

Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt it.
qweasd, all you have done with your previous 2 posts is establish the fact that you are indeed a councillor. The public might well now ask- Why is it that this councillor is posting these comments without revealing their real identity? Once again I will refer you to the Nolan Principles particularly these 2- openness: holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands; honesty: holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest; May be this is why you are reluctant to reveal which disgraced councillor you reallly are. My guesses would be one of the following Brian Morris Tony Wright Richard Graham Mitchell Micheal Westerman George Metcalfe Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt it. Always a 708 Skinhead

1:20pm Thu 19 Dec 13

qweasd says...

Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Be under no illusion tax payer, any additional increase by this dysfunctional council is on top of the 72.6% of last year as well. Months ago when it became apparent that last year's Civic Centre deficit of over £252,000, was going to be the same, if not more, this year, our MP offered the council help. The hierarchy of the council, snubbed his offer with a derisory letter and Cllr Graham Mitchell called members of the public who had raised their concerns with our MP as 'Mad Swivel Eyed Loons'.
This is the contempt that Cllr Graham Mitchell and his cohort, hold both the electorate and the MP in.
Instead of mayor walker berating the public, perhaps she should try to claim back the money from the Police Experience that they never paid back. There were three serving councillors on its board, one a magistrate, one an ex police officer and one the chair of finance. Why doesn't s walker claim back the money from those in Cllr Pedley's report into apparent Financial and Staffing Matters. Why doesn't s walker look into allegations of bribes being offered. Why doesn't s walker look into why Cllr Brian Morris put up the allotment land at Hog Holes for sale, without telling his committee, his council or the Secretary of State. Why is she not looking at the non compliance with the Localism Act 2011, which forbids the council to trade, unless through a registered company or similar. There is good reason for this, because the council trades at a loss and if it were a company it would be bankrupt. Sally Walker your term as mayor has brought disgrace to this town.
One day you will tell the truth Michel you have cost the ratepayers of Keighley £50,000 just as you did to Oakbank School. I hope you are proud of yourself.
[quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Be under no illusion tax payer, any additional increase by this dysfunctional council is on top of the 72.6% of last year as well. Months ago when it became apparent that last year's Civic Centre deficit of over £252,000, was going to be the same, if not more, this year, our MP offered the council help. The hierarchy of the council, snubbed his offer with a derisory letter and Cllr Graham Mitchell called members of the public who had raised their concerns with our MP as 'Mad Swivel Eyed Loons'. This is the contempt that Cllr Graham Mitchell and his cohort, hold both the electorate and the MP in. Instead of mayor walker berating the public, perhaps she should try to claim back the money from the Police Experience that they never paid back. There were three serving councillors on its board, one a magistrate, one an ex police officer and one the chair of finance. Why doesn't s walker claim back the money from those in Cllr Pedley's report into apparent Financial and Staffing Matters. Why doesn't s walker look into allegations of bribes being offered. Why doesn't s walker look into why Cllr Brian Morris put up the allotment land at Hog Holes for sale, without telling his committee, his council or the Secretary of State. Why is she not looking at the non compliance with the Localism Act 2011, which forbids the council to trade, unless through a registered company or similar. There is good reason for this, because the council trades at a loss and if it were a company it would be bankrupt. Sally Walker your term as mayor has brought disgrace to this town.[/p][/quote]One day you will tell the truth Michel you have cost the ratepayers of Keighley £50,000 just as you did to Oakbank School. I hope you are proud of yourself. qweasd

1:24pm Thu 19 Dec 13

qweasd says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
qweasd, all you have done with your previous 2 posts is establish the fact that you are indeed a councillor. The public might well now ask- Why is it that this councillor is posting these comments without revealing their real identity?
Once again I will refer you to the Nolan Principles particularly these 2-

openness:
holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands;

honesty:
holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest;

May be this is why you are reluctant to reveal which disgraced councillor you reallly are.

My guesses would be one of the following

Brian Morris
Tony Wright
Richard Graham Mitchell
Micheal Westerman
George Metcalfe

Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt it.
Unfortunately Simon you have proved on many occasion honesty is not in your vocabulary.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: qweasd, all you have done with your previous 2 posts is establish the fact that you are indeed a councillor. The public might well now ask- Why is it that this councillor is posting these comments without revealing their real identity? Once again I will refer you to the Nolan Principles particularly these 2- openness: holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands; honesty: holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest; May be this is why you are reluctant to reveal which disgraced councillor you reallly are. My guesses would be one of the following Brian Morris Tony Wright Richard Graham Mitchell Micheal Westerman George Metcalfe Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt it.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately Simon you have proved on many occasion honesty is not in your vocabulary. qweasd

1:25pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Once again qweasd, I will now ask you to provide the evidence to support your claim
" you have cost the ratepayers of Keighley £50,000 just as you did to Oakbank School. "

Come on councillor it should not be that hard. Verify your statement. Add your name to vouch your integrity in doing so and then the faith of the Public may once again be restored in KTC.
Once again. I doubt it.
Once again qweasd, I will now ask you to provide the evidence to support your claim " you have cost the ratepayers of Keighley £50,000 just as you did to Oakbank School. " Come on councillor it should not be that hard. Verify your statement. Add your name to vouch your integrity in doing so and then the faith of the Public may once again be restored in KTC. Once again. I doubt it. Always a 708 Skinhead

1:29pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

Qweasd You are not being truthful I know of at least one person who objected to the accounts of Keighley Town Council who is not a member of the group Cavetown. He is a councillor.
I, and others, had a legal right to inspect your accounts. I and others found dreadful financial maladministration. Payments made on torn off bits of paper for hundreds of pounds, with no authorisation, or address. Payments for thousands of pounds that never went through payroll, loans made to council members that were never approved by full council. Money that wasn't paid back by those members. Most of the transactions don't even comply with your own Financial Regulations. Expensive assets were never recorded on your asset register. Your accounts were approved, yet your councillors had never even seen a copy of what they raised their hands to approve. What should we have done, Qweasd, turned a blind eye, I don't know whether you are a councillor or a member of staff, I know this though Qeasd, the cost of audit is not down to those who have outed your financial maladministration, it is down to you and others within the council who have not complied with the Council Financial Regulations. which can be found on this link: http://www.keighley.
gov.uk/about/legal_d
ocs/index.html
just scroll down to Financial Regulations. Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest Qseasd or should that be three from the top and three from the middle. Stop blaming others for your downright incompetence and ignorance
Qweasd You are not being truthful I know of at least one person who objected to the accounts of Keighley Town Council who is not a member of the group Cavetown. He is a councillor. I, and others, had a legal right to inspect your accounts. I and others found dreadful financial maladministration. Payments made on torn off bits of paper for hundreds of pounds, with no authorisation, or address. Payments for thousands of pounds that never went through payroll, loans made to council members that were never approved by full council. Money that wasn't paid back by those members. Most of the transactions don't even comply with your own Financial Regulations. Expensive assets were never recorded on your asset register. Your accounts were approved, yet your councillors had never even seen a copy of what they raised their hands to approve. What should we have done, Qweasd, turned a blind eye, I don't know whether you are a councillor or a member of staff, I know this though Qeasd, the cost of audit is not down to those who have outed your financial maladministration, it is down to you and others within the council who have not complied with the Council Financial Regulations. which can be found on this link: http://www.keighley. gov.uk/about/legal_d ocs/index.html just scroll down to Financial Regulations. Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest Qseasd or should that be three from the top and three from the middle. Stop blaming others for your downright incompetence and ignorance Elizabeth Mitchell

1:31pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

qweasad,
Your comment
"Unfortunately Simon you have proved on many occasion honesty is not in your vocabulary."

Can you find any lies in the following simple statement-

Morris, Muzzled,
Lockley, Left.
Wright, Wronged,
Westerman,Theft.

I doubt it.
qweasad, Your comment "Unfortunately Simon you have proved on many occasion honesty is not in your vocabulary." Can you find any lies in the following simple statement- Morris, Muzzled, Lockley, Left. Wright, Wronged, Westerman,Theft. I doubt it. Always a 708 Skinhead

1:47pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

Finance Minute 2012/86 Proposed by Councillor Philip,
Seconded by Councillor Pedley, and

RESOLVED
That the Finance Committee lend the Social Enterprise up to £20,000 out of the Special Projects or Contingency Funds to be paid back when funds are available.

This social enterprise was called the Police Experience. It had no constitution, no bank account and included three councillors on its board. The Chair of Finance, proposed the loan and he was the Treasurer of the Police Experience, It folded after a few months owing the Keighley Town Council thousands of pounds that was never paid back. Shall I continue Qweasd?
FOI response from the town clerk 4 Dec 12, in relation to the company known as the Police Experience. She states : "10. this is the name of the Social Enterprise company set up to run the museum and shop and has a board of directors. It is a company limited by guarantee.". That was not a true statement, was it Qweasd, The Police Experience wasn't registered with Companies House, I checked. It didn't even have a constitution or bank account, but somehow it managed to be given a £20K loan. I think most right minded people would agree that this should have been brought tot the attention of the auditors. As I said before Qweasd, any costs incurred by the auditors are down to the councils financial maladministration.
Finance Minute 2012/86 Proposed by Councillor Philip, Seconded by Councillor Pedley, and RESOLVED That the Finance Committee lend the Social Enterprise up to £20,000 out of the Special Projects or Contingency Funds to be paid back when funds are available. This social enterprise was called the Police Experience. It had no constitution, no bank account and included three councillors on its board. The Chair of Finance, proposed the loan and he was the Treasurer of the Police Experience, It folded after a few months owing the Keighley Town Council thousands of pounds that was never paid back. Shall I continue Qweasd? FOI response from the town clerk 4 Dec 12, in relation to the company known as the Police Experience. She states : "10. this is the name of the Social Enterprise company set up to run the museum and shop and has a board of directors. It is a company limited by guarantee.". That was not a true statement, was it Qweasd, The Police Experience wasn't registered with Companies House, I checked. It didn't even have a constitution or bank account, but somehow it managed to be given a £20K loan. I think most right minded people would agree that this should have been brought tot the attention of the auditors. As I said before Qweasd, any costs incurred by the auditors are down to the councils financial maladministration. Elizabeth Mitchell

2:20pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

From the big glossy Spring 2013 (Pravda) parish mag, from the Finance Committee chairperson, Cllr John Philip

“when we started out even fewer of us could have foreseen that the economy would go into double dip and even triple-dip recession. “That had a huge impact on our ability to attract businesses as tenants, but we are making progress. “

Cllr Philip, have a word with your town clerk as she informed me 4, as in four, partners had now signed up, so that would suggest you had already attracted the business partners. And now we know they have left so why did they leave? Ask what happened to the contracts they had signed as well, because your clerk also after saying 4, as in four, had signed up she then later went on to say there were no contracts. Can the mayor help explain this?

More of Cllr John Philip from the big glossy (Pravda) mag

“Just under half (48 per cent) of this year’s increase is to cover ongoing costs of the Civic Centre.”

The civic centre deficit for financial year ending 2014 is “£179, 534, which is taken from the councils own 2013/14 budget. The 72.6% precept hike was around £212,000, thus the shown deficit is approximately 85% of this precept rise.


The council then is only using 48% of the 72.6% preceptive rise to help fund the civic centre which will not cover the shown deficit., so what money is being used to cover the rest of the deficit?


Cllr John Philip states again in the big glossy:
“So just over half of the increase (52 per cent) is to make good the likely loss of income in future years – just to stand still. “It was a prudent move. To have done otherwise would have been stupid. “That is why we are increasing our reserves of £50,000 (most of the Bradford severance grant of 2003) up to £100,000 to cover the year-on-year effects of the cut in our income.”

So the remaining 52% must be being used to help raise the councils reserves, as well as make good the likely loss of income in the future years -just to stand still, the emphasis being on `years` not year. So that should have taken care of any “Government funding changes.”


Further the full council minutes from 1 November 2012 record:
“Councillor Philip explained that the Civic Centre is currently being subsidised by the Town Council’s Contingency Funds.”

How much of the Contingency Funds were used to subsides the civic centre? And from where will the money come from to replenish the Contingency Funds? Out of the 52% perhaps?

And on the same page, we read this from Cllr Tony Wright. (Is it apportioning blame do you think?)

“Ever sine it's inception almost 11 years ago, this council has been living on tick.“A generous precepting severance grant from Bradford in 2003 has been squandered bit by bit over the years on keeping the precept artificially low in order to appease the press and other detractors.
“Making this sudden increase – in the best interests of the services this council provides to the community it serves – may not be the most popular thing we could do.“But we are here to serve ALL the people of Keighley Parish, and to ensure that we deliver a robust structure fit for purpose for years to come. “There is every possibility that, by next
year, central government will have capped the level of precept increases parish and town councils can make (as they have already done to the district councils). “So we couldn’t take it step by step and phase an increase over three or four years – we had been forced into a ‘now or never’ situation,” said the Events Committee chairman and twice former Mayor.”

Am I reading this right, is Cllr Wright saying the 72.6% precept rise was to help cover the rises over the the next three to four years? And Cllr Philip said: “So just over half of the increase (52 per cent) is to make good the likely loss of income in future years – just to stand still.

So why is the mayor going on about Government funding changes when the council has already made the precept rise to cover it?
From the big glossy Spring 2013 (Pravda) parish mag, from the Finance Committee chairperson, Cllr John Philip “when we started out even fewer of us could have foreseen that the economy would go into double dip and even triple-dip recession. “That had a huge impact on our ability to attract businesses as tenants, but we are making progress. “ Cllr Philip, have a word with your town clerk as she informed me 4, as in four, partners had now signed up, so that would suggest you had already attracted the business partners. And now we know they have left so why did they leave? Ask what happened to the contracts they had signed as well, because your clerk also after saying 4, as in four, had signed up she then later went on to say there were no contracts. Can the mayor help explain this? More of Cllr John Philip from the big glossy (Pravda) mag “Just under half (48 per cent) of this year’s increase is to cover ongoing costs of the Civic Centre.” The civic centre deficit for financial year ending 2014 is “£179, 534, which is taken from the councils own 2013/14 budget. The 72.6% precept hike was around £212,000, thus the shown deficit is approximately 85% of this precept rise. The council then is only using 48% of the 72.6% preceptive rise to help fund the civic centre which will not cover the shown deficit., so what money is being used to cover the rest of the deficit? Cllr John Philip states again in the big glossy: “So just over half of the increase (52 per cent) is to make good the likely loss of income in future years – just to stand still. “It was a prudent move. To have done otherwise would have been stupid. “That is why we are increasing our reserves of £50,000 (most of the Bradford severance grant of 2003) up to £100,000 to cover the year-on-year effects of the cut in our income.” So the remaining 52% must be being used to help raise the councils reserves, as well as make good the likely loss of income in the future years -just to stand still, the emphasis being on `years` not year. So that should have taken care of any “Government funding changes.” Further the full council minutes from 1 November 2012 record: “Councillor Philip explained that the Civic Centre is currently being subsidised by the Town Council’s Contingency Funds.” How much of the Contingency Funds were used to subsides the civic centre? And from where will the money come from to replenish the Contingency Funds? Out of the 52% perhaps? And on the same page, we read this from Cllr Tony Wright. (Is it apportioning blame do you think?) “Ever sine it's inception almost 11 years ago, this council has been living on tick.“A generous precepting severance grant from Bradford in 2003 has been squandered bit by bit over the years on keeping the precept artificially low in order to appease the press and other detractors. “Making this sudden increase – in the best interests of the services this council provides to the community it serves – may not be the most popular thing we could do.“But we are here to serve ALL the people of Keighley Parish, and to ensure that we deliver a robust structure fit for purpose for years to come. “There is every possibility that, by next year, central government will have capped the level of precept increases parish and town councils can make (as they have already done to the district councils). “So we couldn’t take it step by step and phase an increase over three or four years – we had been forced into a ‘now or never’ situation,” said the Events Committee chairman and twice former Mayor.” Am I reading this right, is Cllr Wright saying the 72.6% precept rise was to help cover the rises over the the next three to four years? And Cllr Philip said: “So just over half of the increase (52 per cent) is to make good the likely loss of income in future years – just to stand still. So why is the mayor going on about Government funding changes when the council has already made the precept rise to cover it? Graham Forsyth

2:35pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

qweased .
“As you are one of the cavetown anarchists you are well aware the external auditors are looking at your complaints and have not looked at the accounts as yet, you and your group are the reason the accounts are late. Interesting to note only members of cavetown have objected, that should tell you something. The cost is down to you and your 8 cohorts, shame you don’t have the dignity to accept responsibility for your actions. Suppose that’s to be expected.”

And where is your supported evidence to prove only Cavetown have objected? There are only two sources you could have attained that information from, either Keighley Town Council who by law have to be provided with a copy of any objections sent to the external auditors, or from the external auditor themselves. Which one is it qweased, or is it both? Tick Tock
qweased . “As you are one of the cavetown anarchists you are well aware the external auditors are looking at your complaints and have not looked at the accounts as yet, you and your group are the reason the accounts are late. Interesting to note only members of cavetown have objected, that should tell you something. The cost is down to you and your 8 cohorts, shame you don’t have the dignity to accept responsibility for your actions. Suppose that’s to be expected.” And where is your supported evidence to prove only Cavetown have objected? There are only two sources you could have attained that information from, either Keighley Town Council who by law have to be provided with a copy of any objections sent to the external auditors, or from the external auditor themselves. Which one is it qweased, or is it both? Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

3:04pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Finance Minute 2012/86 Proposed by Councillor Philip,
Seconded by Councillor Pedley, and

RESOLVED
That the Finance Committee lend the Social Enterprise up to £20,000 out of the Special Projects or Contingency Funds to be paid back when funds are available.

This social enterprise was called the Police Experience. It had no constitution, no bank account and included three councillors on its board. The Chair of Finance, proposed the loan and he was the Treasurer of the Police Experience, It folded after a few months owing the Keighley Town Council thousands of pounds that was never paid back. Shall I continue Qweasd?
FOI response from the town clerk 4 Dec 12, in relation to the company known as the Police Experience. She states : "10. this is the name of the Social Enterprise company set up to run the museum and shop and has a board of directors. It is a company limited by guarantee.". That was not a true statement, was it Qweasd, The Police Experience wasn't registered with Companies House, I checked. It didn't even have a constitution or bank account, but somehow it managed to be given a £20K loan. I think most right minded people would agree that this should have been brought tot the attention of the auditors. As I said before Qweasd, any costs incurred by the auditors are down to the councils financial maladministration.
Civic Centre Sub Committee of the M&S Committee minutes 14 December 2012

“Councillor Corkindale explained that in the light of the excessive projected rents and other costings, the Board had agreed unanimously to ask the Council to take back the physical, operational and employees part of the Civic Centre known as the Police Experience. It was pointed out that there was no agreement with the two staff working for the Police Experience who were both self employed, and who had never been employed by the Police Experience.”

“Councillor Corkindale went on to say that the Board had wound up the Social Enterprise as the situation was untenable and Board Members could not see any way that they could run the Museum under the financial structure which they had been given. The Social Enterprise was never registered as a company and the agreement to wind up was unanimous. Having made the decision the Board felt a great sense of relief as they had considered it an impossible situation.”

“The view of the Board members was that as the entire building was already owned by the Council, the financial strain would not be as great on the Council as it would be on any other organisation. A huge amount of money was projected as being necessary to pay rent to the Council and for wages.”


“At this point the Chairman asked, putting aside the projected shortfall, what was the actual real life financial shortfall which would devolve upon the Council. Councillor Corkindale indicated that this was £3,800. He added that it was important for the Committee to understand that the £20,000 loan would also be returned to the Council, less the £3,800. He added, however, that some £800 was owed to the Police Experience in invoices.”

RECOMMENDED
“That the Committee thanks the Police Experience Board for this realistic assessment of its situation and the efforts they have put made, and in doing so recommends to the Management & Staffing Committee that the Council re-assumes responsibility for the Police Experience operation.”


There you are qweased, from the councils own documents. The £20,000. The Social Enterprise was never registered as a company. And because it was never registered but trading commercially the council were acting ultra vires, beyond it's legal powers according to the 2011 Localisms Act.

OK qweased, now where is your substantiated proof for your claims?

P.S.

Take a look at the Treasurers Accounts for October 2012. Five cheques were paid by the council on behalf of the police experience none of which showed the amounts paid. How doe that work qweased ? Not sure the external auditors would approve of that, and maybe that is why they are still looking over the councils accounts, which of course is not the fault of Cavetown as we did not write out the cheques or print out the Treasurers Accounts. Tick Tock
[quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Finance Minute 2012/86 Proposed by Councillor Philip, Seconded by Councillor Pedley, and RESOLVED That the Finance Committee lend the Social Enterprise up to £20,000 out of the Special Projects or Contingency Funds to be paid back when funds are available. This social enterprise was called the Police Experience. It had no constitution, no bank account and included three councillors on its board. The Chair of Finance, proposed the loan and he was the Treasurer of the Police Experience, It folded after a few months owing the Keighley Town Council thousands of pounds that was never paid back. Shall I continue Qweasd? FOI response from the town clerk 4 Dec 12, in relation to the company known as the Police Experience. She states : "10. this is the name of the Social Enterprise company set up to run the museum and shop and has a board of directors. It is a company limited by guarantee.". That was not a true statement, was it Qweasd, The Police Experience wasn't registered with Companies House, I checked. It didn't even have a constitution or bank account, but somehow it managed to be given a £20K loan. I think most right minded people would agree that this should have been brought tot the attention of the auditors. As I said before Qweasd, any costs incurred by the auditors are down to the councils financial maladministration.[/p][/quote]Civic Centre Sub Committee of the M&S Committee minutes 14 December 2012 “Councillor Corkindale explained that in the light of the excessive projected rents and other costings, the Board had agreed unanimously to ask the Council to take back the physical, operational and employees part of the Civic Centre known as the Police Experience. It was pointed out that there was no agreement with the two staff working for the Police Experience who were both self employed, and who had never been employed by the Police Experience.” “Councillor Corkindale went on to say that the Board had wound up the Social Enterprise as the situation was untenable and Board Members could not see any way that they could run the Museum under the financial structure which they had been given. The Social Enterprise was never registered as a company and the agreement to wind up was unanimous. Having made the decision the Board felt a great sense of relief as they had considered it an impossible situation.” “The view of the Board members was that as the entire building was already owned by the Council, the financial strain would not be as great on the Council as it would be on any other organisation. A huge amount of money was projected as being necessary to pay rent to the Council and for wages.” “At this point the Chairman asked, putting aside the projected shortfall, what was the actual real life financial shortfall which would devolve upon the Council. Councillor Corkindale indicated that this was £3,800. He added that it was important for the Committee to understand that the £20,000 loan would also be returned to the Council, less the £3,800. He added, however, that some £800 was owed to the Police Experience in invoices.” RECOMMENDED “That the Committee thanks the Police Experience Board for this realistic assessment of its situation and the efforts they have put made, and in doing so recommends to the Management & Staffing Committee that the Council re-assumes responsibility for the Police Experience operation.” There you are qweased, from the councils own documents. The £20,000. The Social Enterprise was never registered as a company. And because it was never registered but trading commercially the council were acting ultra vires, beyond it's legal powers according to the 2011 Localisms Act. OK qweased, now where is your substantiated proof for your claims? P.S. Take a look at the Treasurers Accounts for October 2012. Five cheques were paid by the council on behalf of the police experience none of which showed the amounts paid. How doe that work qweased ? Not sure the external auditors would approve of that, and maybe that is why they are still looking over the councils accounts, which of course is not the fault of Cavetown as we did not write out the cheques or print out the Treasurers Accounts. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

3:16pm Thu 19 Dec 13

badgergate says...

So,
its Cavetown who are going to cost the ratepayers vast's amount of money .

And the Ratepayers will have to foot the bill.

SHOCKED !.
So, its Cavetown who are going to cost the ratepayers vast's amount of money . And the Ratepayers will have to foot the bill. SHOCKED !. badgergate

3:39pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

The ratepayer have every right to be shocked , £30,000 - £50,000 having to be paid because the council has not conducted itself properly due to maladministration (L.G.O definition). And if the rate payers are SHOCKED with the 30K-50K bill, they must have been completely gob-smacked with the £252,565 civic centre deficit and the 72.6% precept hike set to help pay for it, also down to KTC. Tick Tock
The ratepayer have every right to be shocked , £30,000 - £50,000 having to be paid because the council has not conducted itself properly due to maladministration (L.G.O definition). And if the rate payers are SHOCKED with the 30K-50K bill, they must have been completely gob-smacked with the £252,565 civic centre deficit and the 72.6% precept hike set to help pay for it, also down to KTC. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

3:47pm Thu 19 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
The ratepayer have every right to be shocked , £30,000 - £50,000 having to be paid because the council has not conducted itself properly due to maladministration (L.G.O definition). And if the rate payers are SHOCKED with the 30K-50K bill, they must have been completely gob-smacked with the £252,565 civic centre deficit and the 72.6% precept hike set to help pay for it, also down to KTC. Tick Tock
and will the ratepayers be shocked when the loss projected for the civic centre is attributed to Cavetown for the continual negative publicity .

SHOCKED
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: The ratepayer have every right to be shocked , £30,000 - £50,000 having to be paid because the council has not conducted itself properly due to maladministration (L.G.O definition). And if the rate payers are SHOCKED with the 30K-50K bill, they must have been completely gob-smacked with the £252,565 civic centre deficit and the 72.6% precept hike set to help pay for it, also down to KTC. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]and will the ratepayers be shocked when the loss projected for the civic centre is attributed to Cavetown for the continual negative publicity . SHOCKED badgergate

3:49pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Keighley Watch says...

Your all wasting your time on this pathetic Town Council, just disband the council and stop wasting our taxes on error after error.
Your all wasting your time on this pathetic Town Council, just disband the council and stop wasting our taxes on error after error. Keighley Watch

4:13pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

Mayor Sally Walker do you remember proposing giving away valuable assets to an unconstituted company without a bank account :

2012/53 M&S CC Civic Centre Sub Committee:
Proposed by Councillor S. Walker
Seconded by Councillor Morris, and

"RECOMMENDED
The immediate transfer of equipment and stock from Keighley Town Council’s contracted ownership as a transfer of assets and liabilities over a five year period to the Police Experience Board as per previous practice."

NOW THAT COUNCILLOR MORRIS IS SHOCKING!
Mayor Sally Walker do you remember proposing giving away valuable assets to an unconstituted company without a bank account : 2012/53 M&S CC Civic Centre Sub Committee: Proposed by Councillor S. Walker Seconded by Councillor Morris, and "RECOMMENDED The immediate transfer of equipment and stock from Keighley Town Council’s contracted ownership as a transfer of assets and liabilities over a five year period to the Police Experience Board as per previous practice." NOW THAT COUNCILLOR MORRIS IS SHOCKING! Elizabeth Mitchell

5:21pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

How well thought out was this civic centre project, seeing as 1.1 million pounds was to be borrowed to fund it, along with £110,00 from the sale of Skipton Road Allotments?


T&A. Thursday 4th August 2011.Transformation of court buildings into visitor centre to be done by Christmas
“Mr Parry said: “It is a great asset for Keighley. We will have the only visitor centre that facilitates the study of forensic science in the country. We will attract schools and colleges from all over the country and bring the benefit to the people of Keighley.”

And from the civic centre website

“We also cater for Weddings in our function room that can accommodate 100 plus,”

And what do large groups of people require?

Minutes from the Civic Centre Sub Committee of the M&S Committee 4 July 2012
“The small number of toilets was a concern particularly with the possibility of large numbers of school children coming into the building. This matter should be investigated as soon as practicable and a solution found.”


How well thought out do you think this ambitious project was? Tick Tock
How well thought out was this civic centre project, seeing as 1.1 million pounds was to be borrowed to fund it, along with £110,00 from the sale of Skipton Road Allotments? T&A. Thursday 4th August 2011.Transformation of court buildings into visitor centre to be done by Christmas “Mr Parry said: “It is a great asset for Keighley. We will have the only visitor centre that facilitates the study of forensic science in the country. We will attract schools and colleges from all over the country and bring the benefit to the people of Keighley.” And from the civic centre website “We also cater for Weddings in our function room that can accommodate 100 plus,” And what do large groups of people require? Minutes from the Civic Centre Sub Committee of the M&S Committee 4 July 2012 “The small number of toilets was a concern particularly with the possibility of large numbers of school children coming into the building. This matter should be investigated as soon as practicable and a solution found.” How well thought out do you think this ambitious project was? Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

5:43pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Finance Minute 2012/86 Proposed by Councillor Philip,
Seconded by Councillor Pedley, and

RESOLVED
That the Finance Committee lend the Social Enterprise up to £20,000 out of the Special Projects or Contingency Funds to be paid back when funds are available.

This social enterprise was called the Police Experience. It had no constitution, no bank account and included three councillors on its board. The Chair of Finance, proposed the loan and he was the Treasurer of the Police Experience, It folded after a few months owing the Keighley Town Council thousands of pounds that was never paid back. Shall I continue Qweasd?
FOI response from the town clerk 4 Dec 12, in relation to the company known as the Police Experience. She states : "10. this is the name of the Social Enterprise company set up to run the museum and shop and has a board of directors. It is a company limited by guarantee.". That was not a true statement, was it Qweasd, The Police Experience wasn't registered with Companies House, I checked. It didn't even have a constitution or bank account, but somehow it managed to be given a £20K loan. I think most right minded people would agree that this should have been brought tot the attention of the auditors. As I said before Qweasd, any costs incurred by the auditors are down to the councils financial maladministration.
Civic Centre Sub Committee of the M&S Committee minutes 14 December 2012

“Councillor Corkindale explained that in the light of the excessive projected rents and other costings, the Board had agreed unanimously to ask the Council to take back the physical, operational and employees part of the Civic Centre known as the Police Experience. It was pointed out that there was no agreement with the two staff working for the Police Experience who were both self employed, and who had never been employed by the Police Experience.”

“Councillor Corkindale went on to say that the Board had wound up the Social Enterprise as the situation was untenable and Board Members could not see any way that they could run the Museum under the financial structure which they had been given. The Social Enterprise was never registered as a company and the agreement to wind up was unanimous. Having made the decision the Board felt a great sense of relief as they had considered it an impossible situation.”

“The view of the Board members was that as the entire building was already owned by the Council, the financial strain would not be as great on the Council as it would be on any other organisation. A huge amount of money was projected as being necessary to pay rent to the Council and for wages.”


“At this point the Chairman asked, putting aside the projected shortfall, what was the actual real life financial shortfall which would devolve upon the Council. Councillor Corkindale indicated that this was £3,800. He added that it was important for the Committee to understand that the £20,000 loan would also be returned to the Council, less the £3,800. He added, however, that some £800 was owed to the Police Experience in invoices.”

RECOMMENDED
“That the Committee thanks the Police Experience Board for this realistic assessment of its situation and the efforts they have put made, and in doing so recommends to the Management & Staffing Committee that the Council re-assumes responsibility for the Police Experience operation.”


There you are qweased, from the councils own documents. The £20,000. The Social Enterprise was never registered as a company. And because it was never registered but trading commercially the council were acting ultra vires, beyond it's legal powers according to the 2011 Localisms Act.

OK qweased, now where is your substantiated proof for your claims?

P.S.

Take a look at the Treasurers Accounts for October 2012. Five cheques were paid by the council on behalf of the police experience none of which showed the amounts paid. How doe that work qweased ? Not sure the external auditors would approve of that, and maybe that is why they are still looking over the councils accounts, which of course is not the fault of Cavetown as we did not write out the cheques or print out the Treasurers Accounts. Tick Tock
M&S Committee minutes 17 September 2012
“The horse will pass to the Social Enterprise in due course.”
Sub Committee Meeting of 05 September 2012
It was requested that the Finance Committee review the loan to the Social Enterprise at the end of the financial year.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Finance Minute 2012/86 Proposed by Councillor Philip, Seconded by Councillor Pedley, and RESOLVED That the Finance Committee lend the Social Enterprise up to £20,000 out of the Special Projects or Contingency Funds to be paid back when funds are available. This social enterprise was called the Police Experience. It had no constitution, no bank account and included three councillors on its board. The Chair of Finance, proposed the loan and he was the Treasurer of the Police Experience, It folded after a few months owing the Keighley Town Council thousands of pounds that was never paid back. Shall I continue Qweasd? FOI response from the town clerk 4 Dec 12, in relation to the company known as the Police Experience. She states : "10. this is the name of the Social Enterprise company set up to run the museum and shop and has a board of directors. It is a company limited by guarantee.". That was not a true statement, was it Qweasd, The Police Experience wasn't registered with Companies House, I checked. It didn't even have a constitution or bank account, but somehow it managed to be given a £20K loan. I think most right minded people would agree that this should have been brought tot the attention of the auditors. As I said before Qweasd, any costs incurred by the auditors are down to the councils financial maladministration.[/p][/quote]Civic Centre Sub Committee of the M&S Committee minutes 14 December 2012 “Councillor Corkindale explained that in the light of the excessive projected rents and other costings, the Board had agreed unanimously to ask the Council to take back the physical, operational and employees part of the Civic Centre known as the Police Experience. It was pointed out that there was no agreement with the two staff working for the Police Experience who were both self employed, and who had never been employed by the Police Experience.” “Councillor Corkindale went on to say that the Board had wound up the Social Enterprise as the situation was untenable and Board Members could not see any way that they could run the Museum under the financial structure which they had been given. The Social Enterprise was never registered as a company and the agreement to wind up was unanimous. Having made the decision the Board felt a great sense of relief as they had considered it an impossible situation.” “The view of the Board members was that as the entire building was already owned by the Council, the financial strain would not be as great on the Council as it would be on any other organisation. A huge amount of money was projected as being necessary to pay rent to the Council and for wages.” “At this point the Chairman asked, putting aside the projected shortfall, what was the actual real life financial shortfall which would devolve upon the Council. Councillor Corkindale indicated that this was £3,800. He added that it was important for the Committee to understand that the £20,000 loan would also be returned to the Council, less the £3,800. He added, however, that some £800 was owed to the Police Experience in invoices.” RECOMMENDED “That the Committee thanks the Police Experience Board for this realistic assessment of its situation and the efforts they have put made, and in doing so recommends to the Management & Staffing Committee that the Council re-assumes responsibility for the Police Experience operation.” There you are qweased, from the councils own documents. The £20,000. The Social Enterprise was never registered as a company. And because it was never registered but trading commercially the council were acting ultra vires, beyond it's legal powers according to the 2011 Localisms Act. OK qweased, now where is your substantiated proof for your claims? P.S. Take a look at the Treasurers Accounts for October 2012. Five cheques were paid by the council on behalf of the police experience none of which showed the amounts paid. How doe that work qweased ? Not sure the external auditors would approve of that, and maybe that is why they are still looking over the councils accounts, which of course is not the fault of Cavetown as we did not write out the cheques or print out the Treasurers Accounts. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]M&S Committee minutes 17 September 2012 “The horse will pass to the Social Enterprise in due course.” Sub Committee Meeting of 05 September 2012 It was requested that the Finance Committee review the loan to the Social Enterprise at the end of the financial year. Graham Forsyth

5:46pm Thu 19 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

qweasd wrote:
Just to clarify.
The external auditors have not yet looked at the accounts for 2012/2013, all they have done to date is follow up on numerous and off the cuff accusations made by this self-appointed anarchist group known as cavetown, who have but one goal. Close the Civic Centre at all costs because they don’t agree with it.

If anyone believes this group are doing this for the benefit of the residents of Keighley then you have been blinded by smoke and mirrors. This group have manipulated figures to make the Council look bad but have never been proven right on any occasion. I think this is why they continue to bombard the Auditors with so much paperwork because it is preventing them from actually looking at the accounts. Expert in Council Accounts the Independent internal Auditors found no irregularities but cavetown say they know better as they have armchair accountants who can add 1 + 1 = 3.
When the external Auditors finally comeback with the same findings Cavetown won’t agree with them also. I believe when this whole debacle is over the Council will be vindicated.

Will the ratepayers of Keighley get an apology from cavetown for the unnecessary cost they have incurred on them? Not in a million years.

If cavetown are what they claim to be then stop sending useless misguided information to the Auditors and let them do the job the ratepayers of Keighley are paying them for. You have cost ratepayers up to £50,000 so far for your prejudices when will you stop, you complain about the cost on the precept, £50,000 will now have to be added to that, this is a direct cost that is firmly at the feet of cavetown and its ongoing vendetta. Please don’t try justify this by saying it’s the price of democracy.
You've lit the touchpaper......prep
are for the fireworks!
[quote][p][bold]qweasd[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify. The external auditors have not yet looked at the accounts for 2012/2013, all they have done to date is follow up on numerous and off the cuff accusations made by this self-appointed anarchist group known as cavetown, who have but one goal. Close the Civic Centre at all costs because they don’t agree with it. If anyone believes this group are doing this for the benefit of the residents of Keighley then you have been blinded by smoke and mirrors. This group have manipulated figures to make the Council look bad but have never been proven right on any occasion. I think this is why they continue to bombard the Auditors with so much paperwork because it is preventing them from actually looking at the accounts. Expert in Council Accounts the Independent internal Auditors found no irregularities but cavetown say they know better as they have armchair accountants who can add 1 + 1 = 3. When the external Auditors finally comeback with the same findings Cavetown won’t agree with them also. I believe when this whole debacle is over the Council will be vindicated. Will the ratepayers of Keighley get an apology from cavetown for the unnecessary cost they have incurred on them? Not in a million years. If cavetown are what they claim to be then stop sending useless misguided information to the Auditors and let them do the job the ratepayers of Keighley are paying them for. You have cost ratepayers up to £50,000 so far for your prejudices when will you stop, you complain about the cost on the precept, £50,000 will now have to be added to that, this is a direct cost that is firmly at the feet of cavetown and its ongoing vendetta. Please don’t try justify this by saying it’s the price of democracy.[/p][/quote]You've lit the touchpaper......prep are for the fireworks! MarkPullen

6:05pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Mayor Sally Walker do you remember proposing giving away valuable assets to an unconstituted company without a bank account :

2012/53 M&S CC Civic Centre Sub Committee:
Proposed by Councillor S. Walker
Seconded by Councillor Morris, and

"RECOMMENDED
The immediate transfer of equipment and stock from Keighley Town Council’s contracted ownership as a transfer of assets and liabilities over a five year period to the Police Experience Board as per previous practice."

NOW THAT COUNCILLOR MORRIS IS SHOCKING!
Having seen the objections and indeed forwarded my own objections to the external auditors I am aware that they are all valid ,however I can understand the people of Keighley being confused as they have not been privy to the information that our groups accountants were ,their findings were so damning that the external auditors are now involved.what I fail to understand is that we have councilors under assumed names commenting on these threads knowing full well that what as been said by the cavetown group is factual and will be so shown once the external auditors have completed their investigation .The forecast of a cost of £30,000 to £50 ,ooo is truly a shocking figure for us the ratepayers of Keighley to bare,but let us be clear about this the council as to take full responsibility for this and in my humble opinion Sally Walker was ill advised to issue a hurriedly prepared statement full of inaccuracies and falsehoods.
[quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Mayor Sally Walker do you remember proposing giving away valuable assets to an unconstituted company without a bank account : 2012/53 M&S CC Civic Centre Sub Committee: Proposed by Councillor S. Walker Seconded by Councillor Morris, and "RECOMMENDED The immediate transfer of equipment and stock from Keighley Town Council’s contracted ownership as a transfer of assets and liabilities over a five year period to the Police Experience Board as per previous practice." NOW THAT COUNCILLOR MORRIS IS SHOCKING![/p][/quote]Having seen the objections and indeed forwarded my own objections to the external auditors I am aware that they are all valid ,however I can understand the people of Keighley being confused as they have not been privy to the information that our groups accountants were ,their findings were so damning that the external auditors are now involved.what I fail to understand is that we have councilors under assumed names commenting on these threads knowing full well that what as been said by the cavetown group is factual and will be so shown once the external auditors have completed their investigation .The forecast of a cost of £30,000 to £50 ,ooo is truly a shocking figure for us the ratepayers of Keighley to bare,but let us be clear about this the council as to take full responsibility for this and in my humble opinion Sally Walker was ill advised to issue a hurriedly prepared statement full of inaccuracies and falsehoods. Ian-Holt Roberts

6:24pm Thu 19 Dec 13

notthecivic says...

wow just look at all theses comments 90% from cavetown members including a big contribution from australia mr simon mitchell aka always a skin.and if you look on his facebook page you will see just what his view are so all take a look and make your own mind up , all i will say is that to me and many others that are friends with him on face book it looks like a bnp or edl home page .
wow just look at all theses comments 90% from cavetown members including a big contribution from australia mr simon mitchell aka always a skin.and if you look on his facebook page you will see just what his view are so all take a look and make your own mind up , all i will say is that to me and many others that are friends with him on face book it looks like a bnp or edl home page . notthecivic

6:41pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Qweased :12:45pm Thu 19 Dec 13
“This group have manipulated figures to make the Council look bad but have never been proven right on any occasion. “

OK qweased go to the councils website and look at their 2013/14 budget and add up these figures which you will find under Expenditure.

Loan interest
Loan principle repayment
Insurance
Utilities
Catering Equipment Lease
Furniture/Equipment lease
Lift Maintenance
Cleaning Supplies
Horse & Associated Costs
Plant (Indoors & Out)
H&S Regs & Associated Costs
Window Cleaning
Advertising/Promotio
nal
Visitor Information Expenses
Receptionist
Trade Waste Services
Sanitary Waste Collection & Low Risk Waste
Events (Civic Centre)
Business Rates
Telephones
Cleaners
Boiler Maintenance
Chatsworth Trust
Alcohol License
Music License
General Maintenance/Repairs
Volunteer Expenses
Miscellaneous Expenses

Add all the figures up that correspond with this list and you will attain £217, 034

Under Income you will see

Miscellaneous Income (Civic Centre)
Horse/Black Maria Income
Visitor Information Centre/Museum
Rental Income (Civic Centre)

Add all the figures up that correspond with this list and you will attain £37,500

So what you now have is the £37,500 civic centre income and the £217,034 civic centre expenditure. Take the income away from the expenditure and it will leave you with what expenditure is remaining, and that will be £179,534 civic centre deficit. And that is using the councils own budget for 2013/14 which is on their website and anyone reading this can join in and do this for themselves.

Do this qweased and you can prove yourself wrong when you said.“This group have manipulated figures to make the Council look bad but have never been proven right on any occasion.“ Tick Tock
Qweased :12:45pm Thu 19 Dec 13 “This group have manipulated figures to make the Council look bad but have never been proven right on any occasion. “ OK qweased go to the councils website and look at their 2013/14 budget and add up these figures which you will find under Expenditure. Loan interest Loan principle repayment Insurance Utilities Catering Equipment Lease Furniture/Equipment lease Lift Maintenance Cleaning Supplies Horse & Associated Costs Plant (Indoors & Out) H&S Regs & Associated Costs Window Cleaning Advertising/Promotio nal Visitor Information Expenses Receptionist Trade Waste Services Sanitary Waste Collection & Low Risk Waste Events (Civic Centre) Business Rates Telephones Cleaners Boiler Maintenance Chatsworth Trust Alcohol License Music License General Maintenance/Repairs Volunteer Expenses Miscellaneous Expenses Add all the figures up that correspond with this list and you will attain £217, 034 Under Income you will see Miscellaneous Income (Civic Centre) Horse/Black Maria Income Visitor Information Centre/Museum Rental Income (Civic Centre) Add all the figures up that correspond with this list and you will attain £37,500 So what you now have is the £37,500 civic centre income and the £217,034 civic centre expenditure. Take the income away from the expenditure and it will leave you with what expenditure is remaining, and that will be £179,534 civic centre deficit. And that is using the councils own budget for 2013/14 which is on their website and anyone reading this can join in and do this for themselves. Do this qweased and you can prove yourself wrong when you said.“This group have manipulated figures to make the Council look bad but have never been proven right on any occasion.“ Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

6:47pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Katiery says...

I am not in Australia. I am not a Cavetown member -I detest the name, it makes us all seem like backward cave dwellers, though to be fair most residents are acting like it in light of the behaviour of Town Councillors.

I am a Keighley resident and as such I am sick to death of the argy bargy from a Councillor to residents. I have no intention of paying another 70% or more in council tax to subsidise a pointless, useless and waste of space toy council.

If the only thing you can do is insult residents, then you are in the wrong job. Accusing them of costing £50,000, which WE will pay is beyond a joke. I think you may find that we will NOT be paying for the Town Council's mishandling, mismanagement, and incompetence any longer. The Town Council has no spine and very few supporters if the last by-election turn out was anything to go by! it's time it was closed down for good.
I am not in Australia. I am not a Cavetown member -I detest the name, it makes us all seem like backward cave dwellers, though to be fair most residents are acting like it in light of the behaviour of Town Councillors. I am a Keighley resident and as such I am sick to death of the argy bargy from a Councillor to residents. I have no intention of paying another 70% or more in council tax to subsidise a pointless, useless and waste of space toy council. If the only thing you can do is insult residents, then you are in the wrong job. Accusing them of costing £50,000, which WE will pay is beyond a joke. I think you may find that we will NOT be paying for the Town Council's mishandling, mismanagement, and incompetence any longer. The Town Council has no spine and very few supporters if the last by-election turn out was anything to go by! it's time it was closed down for good. Katiery

6:52pm Thu 19 Dec 13

badgergate says...

notthecivic wrote:
wow just look at all theses comments 90% from cavetown members including a big contribution from australia mr simon mitchell aka always a skin.and if you look on his facebook page you will see just what his view are so all take a look and make your own mind up , all i will say is that to me and many others that are friends with him on face book it looks like a bnp or edl home page .
The contents on his Facebook Timeline are frightening.

https://www.facebook
.com/Whitey.Skin
[quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: wow just look at all theses comments 90% from cavetown members including a big contribution from australia mr simon mitchell aka always a skin.and if you look on his facebook page you will see just what his view are so all take a look and make your own mind up , all i will say is that to me and many others that are friends with him on face book it looks like a bnp or edl home page .[/p][/quote]The contents on his Facebook Timeline are frightening. https://www.facebook .com/Whitey.Skin badgergate

6:55pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

The councils accounts must be truly shocking when their own councillors have had to put in formal objections to the accounts with the External Auditors.

Then there is Cllr Pedleys condemnation back in Nov 2012 when he says in his report
"6.5 Throughout this investigation it has become increasingly apparent that a culture of concealment, unaccountability and complacency has been allowed to develop. Unacceptable management practices and a lack of financial responsibility by both the M&S Committee and the RFO have undoubtedly preceded this investigation. "

We have a former tenant of the Civic Centre putting out a signed affidavit about bribery and corruption within the council, and even reference to inappropriate sexual behaviour.

I think the public know only too well why the auditors are investigating. I look forward to the day when those responsible are named and shamed. No pseudonyms then councillors.
The councils accounts must be truly shocking when their own councillors have had to put in formal objections to the accounts with the External Auditors. Then there is Cllr Pedleys condemnation back in Nov 2012 when he says in his report "6.5 Throughout this investigation it has become increasingly apparent that a culture of concealment, unaccountability and complacency has been allowed to develop. Unacceptable management practices and a lack of financial responsibility by both the M&S Committee and the RFO have undoubtedly preceded this investigation. " We have a former tenant of the Civic Centre putting out a signed affidavit about bribery and corruption within the council, and even reference to inappropriate sexual behaviour. I think the public know only too well why the auditors are investigating. I look forward to the day when those responsible are named and shamed. No pseudonyms then councillors. Elizabeth Mitchell

8:10pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

OK I admit it I'm a councillor :)
OK I admit it I'm a councillor :) Little Green Man

8:16pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

The figure of between 30k and 50k would suggest the external auditors investigation is very thorough, which would also suggest they are taking the numerous objections very seriously, which one would not expect them to do if the objections were themselves spurious.

And even though the mayor can find it worthy of writing yet another letter to the K.N to inform the public an additional cost of between 30k -50k will be added , due to a group called Cavetown Council, the same mayor has yet to find the time to make a public repudiation of what the group Cavetown Council has sent to the external auditors and other appropriate authorities.

The more this council tries to lay the blame elsewhere the more it bring down upon itself. Tick Tock
The figure of between 30k and 50k would suggest the external auditors investigation is very thorough, which would also suggest they are taking the numerous objections very seriously, which one would not expect them to do if the objections were themselves spurious. And even though the mayor can find it worthy of writing yet another letter to the K.N to inform the public an additional cost of between 30k -50k will be added , due to a group called Cavetown Council, the same mayor has yet to find the time to make a public repudiation of what the group Cavetown Council has sent to the external auditors and other appropriate authorities. The more this council tries to lay the blame elsewhere the more it bring down upon itself. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

8:31pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Katiery wrote:
I am not in Australia. I am not a Cavetown member -I detest the name, it makes us all seem like backward cave dwellers, though to be fair most residents are acting like it in light of the behaviour of Town Councillors.

I am a Keighley resident and as such I am sick to death of the argy bargy from a Councillor to residents. I have no intention of paying another 70% or more in council tax to subsidise a pointless, useless and waste of space toy council.

If the only thing you can do is insult residents, then you are in the wrong job. Accusing them of costing £50,000, which WE will pay is beyond a joke. I think you may find that we will NOT be paying for the Town Council's mishandling, mismanagement, and incompetence any longer. The Town Council has no spine and very few supporters if the last by-election turn out was anything to go by! it's time it was closed down for good.
Katiery thank you for commenting as you have it is refreshing that a ratepayer not a councilor comes on and says from the heart what most of us are feeling ,like yourself I am loath to pay this increase in the precept and like you I am totally dismayed at the attitude of councilors to the electorate of our town.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: I am not in Australia. I am not a Cavetown member -I detest the name, it makes us all seem like backward cave dwellers, though to be fair most residents are acting like it in light of the behaviour of Town Councillors. I am a Keighley resident and as such I am sick to death of the argy bargy from a Councillor to residents. I have no intention of paying another 70% or more in council tax to subsidise a pointless, useless and waste of space toy council. If the only thing you can do is insult residents, then you are in the wrong job. Accusing them of costing £50,000, which WE will pay is beyond a joke. I think you may find that we will NOT be paying for the Town Council's mishandling, mismanagement, and incompetence any longer. The Town Council has no spine and very few supporters if the last by-election turn out was anything to go by! it's time it was closed down for good.[/p][/quote]Katiery thank you for commenting as you have it is refreshing that a ratepayer not a councilor comes on and says from the heart what most of us are feeling ,like yourself I am loath to pay this increase in the precept and like you I am totally dismayed at the attitude of councilors to the electorate of our town. Ian-Holt Roberts

8:48pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Katiery wrote:
I am not in Australia. I am not a Cavetown member -I detest the name, it makes us all seem like backward cave dwellers, though to be fair most residents are acting like it in light of the behaviour of Town Councillors.

I am a Keighley resident and as such I am sick to death of the argy bargy from a Councillor to residents. I have no intention of paying another 70% or more in council tax to subsidise a pointless, useless and waste of space toy council.

If the only thing you can do is insult residents, then you are in the wrong job. Accusing them of costing £50,000, which WE will pay is beyond a joke. I think you may find that we will NOT be paying for the Town Council's mishandling, mismanagement, and incompetence any longer. The Town Council has no spine and very few supporters if the last by-election turn out was anything to go by! it's time it was closed down for good.
Katiery thank you for commenting as you have it is refreshing that a ratepayer not a councilor comes on and says from the heart what most of us are feeling ,like yourself I am loath to pay this increase in the precept and like you I am totally dismayed at the attitude of councilors to the electorate of our town.
To anybody reading these threads I would ask you please look at the comments from In particular Elizabeth Mitchell and Graham Forsyth and note they are backed up by facts and figures taken from the councils own records and from the archives of the Keighley News'
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: I am not in Australia. I am not a Cavetown member -I detest the name, it makes us all seem like backward cave dwellers, though to be fair most residents are acting like it in light of the behaviour of Town Councillors. I am a Keighley resident and as such I am sick to death of the argy bargy from a Councillor to residents. I have no intention of paying another 70% or more in council tax to subsidise a pointless, useless and waste of space toy council. If the only thing you can do is insult residents, then you are in the wrong job. Accusing them of costing £50,000, which WE will pay is beyond a joke. I think you may find that we will NOT be paying for the Town Council's mishandling, mismanagement, and incompetence any longer. The Town Council has no spine and very few supporters if the last by-election turn out was anything to go by! it's time it was closed down for good.[/p][/quote]Katiery thank you for commenting as you have it is refreshing that a ratepayer not a councilor comes on and says from the heart what most of us are feeling ,like yourself I am loath to pay this increase in the precept and like you I am totally dismayed at the attitude of councilors to the electorate of our town.[/p][/quote]To anybody reading these threads I would ask you please look at the comments from In particular Elizabeth Mitchell and Graham Forsyth and note they are backed up by facts and figures taken from the councils own records and from the archives of the Keighley News' Ian-Holt Roberts

8:51pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

" have no intention of paying another 70% or more in council tax " I'm sorry but unless you plan on leaving town or going to jail then I'm afraid you are!

"I think you may find that we will NOT be paying for the Town Council's mishandling, mismanagement, and incompetence any longer" I think you will find that you WILL be paying for it - even if the council are replaced or even disbanded completely tomorrow the debt will still have to be paid for - ultimately by you in one form or another.

You guys really think that as soon as the council are no more all the problems are over?
" have no intention of paying another 70% or more in council tax " I'm sorry but unless you plan on leaving town or going to jail then I'm afraid you are! "I think you may find that we will NOT be paying for the Town Council's mishandling, mismanagement, and incompetence any longer" I think you will find that you WILL be paying for it - even if the council are replaced or even disbanded completely tomorrow the debt will still have to be paid for - ultimately by you in one form or another. You guys really think that as soon as the council are no more all the problems are over? Little Green Man

8:52pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Katiery wrote:
I am not in Australia. I am not a Cavetown member -I detest the name, it makes us all seem like backward cave dwellers, though to be fair most residents are acting like it in light of the behaviour of Town Councillors.

I am a Keighley resident and as such I am sick to death of the argy bargy from a Councillor to residents. I have no intention of paying another 70% or more in council tax to subsidise a pointless, useless and waste of space toy council.

If the only thing you can do is insult residents, then you are in the wrong job. Accusing them of costing £50,000, which WE will pay is beyond a joke. I think you may find that we will NOT be paying for the Town Council's mishandling, mismanagement, and incompetence any longer. The Town Council has no spine and very few supporters if the last by-election turn out was anything to go by! it's time it was closed down for good.
Katiery thank you for commenting as you have it is refreshing that a ratepayer not a councilor comes on and says from the heart what most of us are feeling ,like yourself I am loath to pay this increase in the precept and like you I am totally dismayed at the attitude of councilors to the electorate of our town.
To anybody reading these threads I would ask you please look at the comments from In particular Elizabeth Mitchell and Graham Forsyth and note they are backed up by facts and figures taken from the councils own records and from the archives of the Keighley News'
To anyone reading these threads, don't bother looking at Graham Forsyths comments unless you suffer from a particularly bad case of insomnia :)
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: I am not in Australia. I am not a Cavetown member -I detest the name, it makes us all seem like backward cave dwellers, though to be fair most residents are acting like it in light of the behaviour of Town Councillors. I am a Keighley resident and as such I am sick to death of the argy bargy from a Councillor to residents. I have no intention of paying another 70% or more in council tax to subsidise a pointless, useless and waste of space toy council. If the only thing you can do is insult residents, then you are in the wrong job. Accusing them of costing £50,000, which WE will pay is beyond a joke. I think you may find that we will NOT be paying for the Town Council's mishandling, mismanagement, and incompetence any longer. The Town Council has no spine and very few supporters if the last by-election turn out was anything to go by! it's time it was closed down for good.[/p][/quote]Katiery thank you for commenting as you have it is refreshing that a ratepayer not a councilor comes on and says from the heart what most of us are feeling ,like yourself I am loath to pay this increase in the precept and like you I am totally dismayed at the attitude of councilors to the electorate of our town.[/p][/quote]To anybody reading these threads I would ask you please look at the comments from In particular Elizabeth Mitchell and Graham Forsyth and note they are backed up by facts and figures taken from the councils own records and from the archives of the Keighley News'[/p][/quote]To anyone reading these threads, don't bother looking at Graham Forsyths comments unless you suffer from a particularly bad case of insomnia :) Little Green Man

9:33pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
The figure of between 30k and 50k would suggest the external auditors investigation is very thorough, which would also suggest they are taking the numerous objections very seriously, which one would not expect them to do if the objections were themselves spurious.

And even though the mayor can find it worthy of writing yet another letter to the K.N to inform the public an additional cost of between 30k -50k will be added , due to a group called Cavetown Council, the same mayor has yet to find the time to make a public repudiation of what the group Cavetown Council has sent to the external auditors and other appropriate authorities.

The more this council tries to lay the blame elsewhere the more it bring down upon itself. Tick Tock
Again may I say that cavetown members are not alone with our criticism of this council ,we are in contact with 10 of the present councilors that are just as dissatisfied with their colleagues as we are ,this may sound strange to ones who have never attended council or sub committee meetings but to those who have and seen how it operates it is quite obvious why they feel that way .
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: The figure of between 30k and 50k would suggest the external auditors investigation is very thorough, which would also suggest they are taking the numerous objections very seriously, which one would not expect them to do if the objections were themselves spurious. And even though the mayor can find it worthy of writing yet another letter to the K.N to inform the public an additional cost of between 30k -50k will be added , due to a group called Cavetown Council, the same mayor has yet to find the time to make a public repudiation of what the group Cavetown Council has sent to the external auditors and other appropriate authorities. The more this council tries to lay the blame elsewhere the more it bring down upon itself. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Again may I say that cavetown members are not alone with our criticism of this council ,we are in contact with 10 of the present councilors that are just as dissatisfied with their colleagues as we are ,this may sound strange to ones who have never attended council or sub committee meetings but to those who have and seen how it operates it is quite obvious why they feel that way . Ian-Holt Roberts

1:16am Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Graham Forsyth wrote:
The figure of between 30k and 50k would suggest the external auditors investigation is very thorough, which would also suggest they are taking the numerous objections very seriously, which one would not expect them to do if the objections were themselves spurious.

And even though the mayor can find it worthy of writing yet another letter to the K.N to inform the public an additional cost of between 30k -50k will be added , due to a group called Cavetown Council, the same mayor has yet to find the time to make a public repudiation of what the group Cavetown Council has sent to the external auditors and other appropriate authorities.

The more this council tries to lay the blame elsewhere the more it bring down upon itself. Tick Tock
Again may I say that cavetown members are not alone with our criticism of this council ,we are in contact with 10 of the present councilors that are just as dissatisfied with their colleagues as we are ,this may sound strange to ones who have never attended council or sub committee meetings but to those who have and seen how it operates it is quite obvious why they feel that way .
If 10 Councillors are dissatisfied then what are they doing about it? I don't think it's a pick and choose situation, get shot of the whole lot of them for good and stop their endless arguments, sarcastic comments and money draining.

As for residents having to pay for the incompetence and dodgy dealing, let the darned councillors pay it, they were quick to rack up the costs without consideration for anyone else.

The figures from Cavetown may be correct but one person could list those rather than over 50 posts saying almost the same thing.
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: The figure of between 30k and 50k would suggest the external auditors investigation is very thorough, which would also suggest they are taking the numerous objections very seriously, which one would not expect them to do if the objections were themselves spurious. And even though the mayor can find it worthy of writing yet another letter to the K.N to inform the public an additional cost of between 30k -50k will be added , due to a group called Cavetown Council, the same mayor has yet to find the time to make a public repudiation of what the group Cavetown Council has sent to the external auditors and other appropriate authorities. The more this council tries to lay the blame elsewhere the more it bring down upon itself. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Again may I say that cavetown members are not alone with our criticism of this council ,we are in contact with 10 of the present councilors that are just as dissatisfied with their colleagues as we are ,this may sound strange to ones who have never attended council or sub committee meetings but to those who have and seen how it operates it is quite obvious why they feel that way .[/p][/quote]If 10 Councillors are dissatisfied then what are they doing about it? I don't think it's a pick and choose situation, get shot of the whole lot of them for good and stop their endless arguments, sarcastic comments and money draining. As for residents having to pay for the incompetence and dodgy dealing, let the darned councillors pay it, they were quick to rack up the costs without consideration for anyone else. The figures from Cavetown may be correct but one person could list those rather than over 50 posts saying almost the same thing. Katiery

8:26am Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

From the above article-
"The North Street building was revealed to be £74,000 in the red in February. That figure had increased to £162,000 by May, after which the council has refused to issue any updates."

Why is it that the council prefers not to disclose the current state of the finances regarding the Civic Centre?

It seems that the council led by mayor Sally Walker has continued with the culture which was highlighted by Councillor Pedley in his report dated 23 November 2012.

"6.5 Throughout this investigation it has become increasingly apparent that a culture of concealment, unaccountability and complacency has been allowed to develop.
Unacceptable management practices and a lack of financial responsibility by both the M&S Committee and the RFO have undoubtedly preceded this investigation."

What we do know Secretive Sally is this-
The actual loss for the Civic Centre last year was in reality in the region of £252,000.

The projected loss for this Financial year was predicted by the council to be £179,000.

This was before the Civic Centre lost it's remaining paying Tenants.
This was before the council used ratepayers money to now employ somebody to run the Cafe instead of this being covered by a rent paying, profit sharing tenant.

councillor Brian Morris listed the Allotment Land at Hog Holes for Sale until this was discovered and questioned as legal.
Since the majority of the money from the sale of the Skipton Road Allotments went into servicing the debt of the Civic Centre then we can assume this was the intention if Hog Holes had been sold.

Rather than take the opportunity to address this Silly Sally, you have made absurd comments which have provoked this response from Kris Hopkins MP-
"“Dealing with challenges from the public is part of democracy. To suggest responding to extra e-mails will lead to an increase of £50,000 on its base budget demonstrates how utterly dysfunctional Keighley Town Council has become."

If you genuinely believe this is a factual statement-

“Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests.

“The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.”

then you should request a formal investigation into corruption as this money is clearly not being well spent.
Of the several emails I have sent to the entire council I have NEVER received an official response.
I have however received responses from councillors via their Private email addresses, mostly abusive, insulting and threatening.

As these are the only communications I have received from the council your statement implies that councillors Mitchell, Morris, Westerman, Wright and ex Deputy mayor Lockley must have received a portion of the £50,000 you claim it costs in dealing with electronic communication.

As one of these councillors, former mayor Westerman already has a Criminal Conviction for Theft, then it is clearly in the Public Interest to identify exactly where this large amount of money has been spent.

In response to a Freedom of Information request to a person who is in no way associated with Cavetown Council the volume of FOI requests was answered -
Dear Mr Pullen

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 19 November.

1 The total number of FOI requests received by Keighley Town Council is 81.
2 All the FOI requests have been answered apart from 6 which were refused.
3 The reason they were refused was because they were repeated requests.

Regards

Debbie Spink
Deputy Town Clerk
Keighley Town Council

Obviously, this is the entire amount which also includes non Cavetown ones such as the one the answer is in response to.

So-
81 FOI responses not exlcusively requested by Cavetown members. PLUS
Untold amounts of abusive responses from councillors Private email addresses to Cavetown Members. PLUS
An investigation and Audit by the External Auditors due to the councils incompetence EQUALS
Between £30,000 and £50,000. which can be attributed to the failure of this council to Act within it's Powers.

Tick Tock
The countdown continues...
From the above article- "The North Street building was revealed to be £74,000 in the red in February. That figure had increased to £162,000 by May, after which the council has refused to issue any updates." Why is it that the council prefers not to disclose the current state of the finances regarding the Civic Centre? It seems that the council led by mayor Sally Walker has continued with the culture which was highlighted by Councillor Pedley in his report dated 23 November 2012. "6.5 Throughout this investigation it has become increasingly apparent that a culture of concealment, unaccountability and complacency has been allowed to develop. Unacceptable management practices and a lack of financial responsibility by both the M&S Committee and the RFO have undoubtedly preceded this investigation." What we do know Secretive Sally is this- The actual loss for the Civic Centre last year was in reality in the region of £252,000. The projected loss for this Financial year was predicted by the council to be £179,000. This was before the Civic Centre lost it's remaining paying Tenants. This was before the council used ratepayers money to now employ somebody to run the Cafe instead of this being covered by a rent paying, profit sharing tenant. councillor Brian Morris listed the Allotment Land at Hog Holes for Sale until this was discovered and questioned as legal. Since the majority of the money from the sale of the Skipton Road Allotments went into servicing the debt of the Civic Centre then we can assume this was the intention if Hog Holes had been sold. Rather than take the opportunity to address this Silly Sally, you have made absurd comments which have provoked this response from Kris Hopkins MP- "“Dealing with challenges from the public is part of democracy. To suggest responding to extra e-mails will lead to an increase of £50,000 on its base budget demonstrates how utterly dysfunctional Keighley Town Council has become." If you genuinely believe this is a factual statement- “Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests. “The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.” then you should request a formal investigation into corruption as this money is clearly not being well spent. Of the several emails I have sent to the entire council I have NEVER received an official response. I have however received responses from councillors via their Private email addresses, mostly abusive, insulting and threatening. As these are the only communications I have received from the council your statement implies that councillors Mitchell, Morris, Westerman, Wright and ex Deputy mayor Lockley must have received a portion of the £50,000 you claim it costs in dealing with electronic communication. As one of these councillors, former mayor Westerman already has a Criminal Conviction for Theft, then it is clearly in the Public Interest to identify exactly where this large amount of money has been spent. In response to a Freedom of Information request to a person who is in no way associated with Cavetown Council the volume of FOI requests was answered - Dear Mr Pullen Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 19 November. 1 The total number of FOI requests received by Keighley Town Council is 81. 2 All the FOI requests have been answered apart from 6 which were refused. 3 The reason they were refused was because they were repeated requests. Regards Debbie Spink Deputy Town Clerk Keighley Town Council Obviously, this is the entire amount which also includes non Cavetown ones such as the one the answer is in response to. So- 81 FOI responses not exlcusively requested by Cavetown members. PLUS Untold amounts of abusive responses from councillors Private email addresses to Cavetown Members. PLUS An investigation and Audit by the External Auditors due to the councils incompetence EQUALS Between £30,000 and £50,000. which can be attributed to the failure of this council to Act within it's Powers. Tick Tock The countdown continues... Always a 708 Skinhead

8:29am Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

As well as the above, it seems another issue raised in the suppressed councillor Pedleys Report which has continued to cause problems at KTC is this-

6.7 The RFO must also bear some responsibility for the problems identified in this report.
As the line manager of KTC staff and the Responsible Financial Officer, it is a mandatory duty of the Clerk/RFO to carry out this role in a competent and responsible manner.

There is no doubt that once your term as mayor is at an end Sally Walker there will be very little positives you will be able to mention in your review as your time as mayor.

The fact that the research of the Law and the councils own documents by Members of the Public under the collective name of Cavetown Council, has been conducted legally and within the framework set out to ensure Accountability by a Town or Parish Council is clearly evident as it is not the members of this group who have been criticised by several different Members of Parliament or are currently under investigation from several different Departments of Government.

You may well be remembered as the mayor responsible for leading the council who acted so disgracefully that the prompted a major change in Legislation to prevent such disastrous events ever occurring again.

You must be so Proud.

Tick Tock
As well as the above, it seems another issue raised in the suppressed councillor Pedleys Report which has continued to cause problems at KTC is this- 6.7 The RFO must also bear some responsibility for the problems identified in this report. As the line manager of KTC staff and the Responsible Financial Officer, it is a mandatory duty of the Clerk/RFO to carry out this role in a competent and responsible manner. There is no doubt that once your term as mayor is at an end Sally Walker there will be very little positives you will be able to mention in your review as your time as mayor. The fact that the research of the Law and the councils own documents by Members of the Public under the collective name of Cavetown Council, has been conducted legally and within the framework set out to ensure Accountability by a Town or Parish Council is clearly evident as it is not the members of this group who have been criticised by several different Members of Parliament or are currently under investigation from several different Departments of Government. You may well be remembered as the mayor responsible for leading the council who acted so disgracefully that the prompted a major change in Legislation to prevent such disastrous events ever occurring again. You must be so Proud. Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead

8:35am Fri 20 Dec 13

Gobbag Vooar says...

Katiery. I came on these sites with an open mind with an interest in what my local council was doing, after what I was reading in local press. One thing that astounds me is the behaviour on these sites of some who give me good reason to suspect that they are Town Councillors, Now you examine these posts for yourself and draw your own conclusions. We have a few "nasty's " on here already, without looking over previous sites.
Look at what has happened due to the purchase of The Civic Centre, do you wonder that some parishioners are having concerns including yourself, as to the mounting costs of a venture which we were assured would not cost us one penny. ? How long will these costs to the ratepayer go on mounting, before some action is taken to stem the tide ?

Instead of challenging the Cavetown claims, which you would expect, what we are continuing to see is an attack on the credibility individuals themselves.

Katiery, Take care, as it seems as though ratepayers asking questions will soon be branded as trouble makers, and fair game for the barrage of abuse, already dished out.
Katiery. I came on these sites with an open mind with an interest in what my local council was doing, after what I was reading in local press. One thing that astounds me is the behaviour on these sites of some who give me good reason to suspect that they are Town Councillors, Now you examine these posts for yourself and draw your own conclusions. We have a few "nasty's " on here already, without looking over previous sites. Look at what has happened due to the purchase of The Civic Centre, do you wonder that some parishioners are having concerns including yourself, as to the mounting costs of a venture which we were assured would not cost us one penny. ? How long will these costs to the ratepayer go on mounting, before some action is taken to stem the tide ? Instead of challenging the Cavetown claims, which you would expect, what we are continuing to see is an attack on the credibility individuals themselves. Katiery, Take care, as it seems as though ratepayers asking questions will soon be branded as trouble makers, and fair game for the barrage of abuse, already dished out. Gobbag Vooar

8:35am Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Katiery wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Graham Forsyth wrote:
The figure of between 30k and 50k would suggest the external auditors investigation is very thorough, which would also suggest they are taking the numerous objections very seriously, which one would not expect them to do if the objections were themselves spurious.

And even though the mayor can find it worthy of writing yet another letter to the K.N to inform the public an additional cost of between 30k -50k will be added , due to a group called Cavetown Council, the same mayor has yet to find the time to make a public repudiation of what the group Cavetown Council has sent to the external auditors and other appropriate authorities.

The more this council tries to lay the blame elsewhere the more it bring down upon itself. Tick Tock
Again may I say that cavetown members are not alone with our criticism of this council ,we are in contact with 10 of the present councilors that are just as dissatisfied with their colleagues as we are ,this may sound strange to ones who have never attended council or sub committee meetings but to those who have and seen how it operates it is quite obvious why they feel that way .
If 10 Councillors are dissatisfied then what are they doing about it? I don't think it's a pick and choose situation, get shot of the whole lot of them for good and stop their endless arguments, sarcastic comments and money draining.

As for residents having to pay for the incompetence and dodgy dealing, let the darned councillors pay it, they were quick to rack up the costs without consideration for anyone else.

The figures from Cavetown may be correct but one person could list those rather than over 50 posts saying almost the same thing.
Katiery I must admit to feeling exactly the same with regards the council ,all must bear some responsibility for the sad state of affairs we now find ourselves in,a number have attempted to alter things and one resigned as a result of their actions but all a little to late.With regards postings we are a bunch of individuals with no constraints on who says what or the way it is put down on a thread often it is in a reply to a particular topic .I do suspect that another reason may be that we are aware that hundreds of people view the site without commenting which is a shame and have the setting set for the last comment to be shown first once there is a large number of posts on ,ie hundreds they lose interest and switch off ,so maybe some posts are then repeated for that reason .It is difficult when we have such a lot of information available just when and how to make it public indeed each week fresh allegations are placed on our doorsteps ,we then have to decide just what we are going to do with it more than likely it is forwarded to the appropriate organisations and others are withheld for a more suitable time I and others of the group I am sure will have taken note of your comments on the number of postings but please understand there is a need to let as many people as possible aware of the failings of this council .
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: The figure of between 30k and 50k would suggest the external auditors investigation is very thorough, which would also suggest they are taking the numerous objections very seriously, which one would not expect them to do if the objections were themselves spurious. And even though the mayor can find it worthy of writing yet another letter to the K.N to inform the public an additional cost of between 30k -50k will be added , due to a group called Cavetown Council, the same mayor has yet to find the time to make a public repudiation of what the group Cavetown Council has sent to the external auditors and other appropriate authorities. The more this council tries to lay the blame elsewhere the more it bring down upon itself. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Again may I say that cavetown members are not alone with our criticism of this council ,we are in contact with 10 of the present councilors that are just as dissatisfied with their colleagues as we are ,this may sound strange to ones who have never attended council or sub committee meetings but to those who have and seen how it operates it is quite obvious why they feel that way .[/p][/quote]If 10 Councillors are dissatisfied then what are they doing about it? I don't think it's a pick and choose situation, get shot of the whole lot of them for good and stop their endless arguments, sarcastic comments and money draining. As for residents having to pay for the incompetence and dodgy dealing, let the darned councillors pay it, they were quick to rack up the costs without consideration for anyone else. The figures from Cavetown may be correct but one person could list those rather than over 50 posts saying almost the same thing.[/p][/quote]Katiery I must admit to feeling exactly the same with regards the council ,all must bear some responsibility for the sad state of affairs we now find ourselves in,a number have attempted to alter things and one resigned as a result of their actions but all a little to late.With regards postings we are a bunch of individuals with no constraints on who says what or the way it is put down on a thread often it is in a reply to a particular topic .I do suspect that another reason may be that we are aware that hundreds of people view the site without commenting which is a shame and have the setting set for the last comment to be shown first once there is a large number of posts on ,ie hundreds they lose interest and switch off ,so maybe some posts are then repeated for that reason .It is difficult when we have such a lot of information available just when and how to make it public indeed each week fresh allegations are placed on our doorsteps ,we then have to decide just what we are going to do with it more than likely it is forwarded to the appropriate organisations and others are withheld for a more suitable time I and others of the group I am sure will have taken note of your comments on the number of postings but please understand there is a need to let as many people as possible aware of the failings of this council . Ian-Holt Roberts

8:43am Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

He problem with allowing one person to be the individual who highlights the problems of this council is that this person will without doubt become a target from several councillors. Threats, abuse and blatant lies are common place among a few councillors. I have evidence which supports this sent to me personally when I decided to voice my concerns to the official .gov.uk addresses supplied on the KTC website.

To allow one person to become the sole recepient of this abuse would be an unfair request of anyone.
He problem with allowing one person to be the individual who highlights the problems of this council is that this person will without doubt become a target from several councillors. Threats, abuse and blatant lies are common place among a few councillors. I have evidence which supports this sent to me personally when I decided to voice my concerns to the official .gov.uk addresses supplied on the KTC website. To allow one person to become the sole recepient of this abuse would be an unfair request of anyone. Always a 708 Skinhead

9:10am Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Just a couple of things Sally Walker failed to mention in her ill advised tirade. 10 parishioners were escorted from the council meeting for attempting to film the council meeting by 9 police officers of sorts ,whilst the police at a later date apologized to our group saying they should never have been called not a word was said by Sally Walker . We had arranged to have a table at the local gala field where we intended to request Keighley people sign a petition to allow filming at council meetings only to be advised the day prior to the gala by the gala committee that they had been and this is their word BLACKMAILED into refusing us our table by the council, if they had not agreed the council would withdraw their participation which included the crowning of the gala queen by Sally Walker.I would add that one of the councilors was a local magistrate ,how does this fit in with responsibility of being a magistrate
Just a couple of things Sally Walker failed to mention in her ill advised tirade. 10 parishioners were escorted from the council meeting for attempting to film the council meeting by 9 police officers of sorts ,whilst the police at a later date apologized to our group saying they should never have been called not a word was said by Sally Walker . We had arranged to have a table at the local gala field where we intended to request Keighley people sign a petition to allow filming at council meetings only to be advised the day prior to the gala by the gala committee that they had been and this is their word BLACKMAILED into refusing us our table by the council, if they had not agreed the council would withdraw their participation which included the crowning of the gala queen by Sally Walker.I would add that one of the councilors was a local magistrate ,how does this fit in with responsibility of being a magistrate Ian-Holt Roberts

9:16am Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
He problem with allowing one person to be the individual who highlights the problems of this council is that this person will without doubt become a target from several councillors. Threats, abuse and blatant lies are common place among a few councillors. I have evidence which supports this sent to me personally when I decided to voice my concerns to the official .gov.uk addresses supplied on the KTC website.

To allow one person to become the sole recepient of this abuse would be an unfair request of anyone.
Yes it would be far better if it was the family !.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: He problem with allowing one person to be the individual who highlights the problems of this council is that this person will without doubt become a target from several councillors. Threats, abuse and blatant lies are common place among a few councillors. I have evidence which supports this sent to me personally when I decided to voice my concerns to the official .gov.uk addresses supplied on the KTC website. To allow one person to become the sole recepient of this abuse would be an unfair request of anyone.[/p][/quote]Yes it would be far better if it was the family !. badgergate

9:21am Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Just a couple of things Sally Walker failed to mention in her ill advised tirade. 10 parishioners were escorted from the council meeting for attempting to film the council meeting by 9 police officers of sorts ,whilst the police at a later date apologized to our group saying they should never have been called not a word was said by Sally Walker . We had arranged to have a table at the local gala field where we intended to request Keighley people sign a petition to allow filming at council meetings only to be advised the day prior to the gala by the gala committee that they had been and this is their word BLACKMAILED into refusing us our table by the council, if they had not agreed the council would withdraw their participation which included the crowning of the gala queen by Sally Walker.I would add that one of the councilors was a local magistrate ,how does this fit in with responsibility of being a magistrate
You forgot to mention the parishioners were pensioners it adds more to the story .
And you forgot to mention a Cavetowner stalked a pensioner .


It all helps .
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: Just a couple of things Sally Walker failed to mention in her ill advised tirade. 10 parishioners were escorted from the council meeting for attempting to film the council meeting by 9 police officers of sorts ,whilst the police at a later date apologized to our group saying they should never have been called not a word was said by Sally Walker . We had arranged to have a table at the local gala field where we intended to request Keighley people sign a petition to allow filming at council meetings only to be advised the day prior to the gala by the gala committee that they had been and this is their word BLACKMAILED into refusing us our table by the council, if they had not agreed the council would withdraw their participation which included the crowning of the gala queen by Sally Walker.I would add that one of the councilors was a local magistrate ,how does this fit in with responsibility of being a magistrate[/p][/quote]You forgot to mention the parishioners were pensioners it adds more to the story . And you forgot to mention a Cavetowner stalked a pensioner . It all helps . badgergate

9:39am Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

Gobbag Vooar wrote:
Katiery. I came on these sites with an open mind with an interest in what my local council was doing, after what I was reading in local press. One thing that astounds me is the behaviour on these sites of some who give me good reason to suspect that they are Town Councillors, Now you examine these posts for yourself and draw your own conclusions. We have a few "nasty's " on here already, without looking over previous sites.
Look at what has happened due to the purchase of The Civic Centre, do you wonder that some parishioners are having concerns including yourself, as to the mounting costs of a venture which we were assured would not cost us one penny. ? How long will these costs to the ratepayer go on mounting, before some action is taken to stem the tide ?

Instead of challenging the Cavetown claims, which you would expect, what we are continuing to see is an attack on the credibility individuals themselves.

Katiery, Take care, as it seems as though ratepayers asking questions will soon be branded as trouble makers, and fair game for the barrage of abuse, already dished out.
The most sensible post yet. Thank you Gobbag Vooar. I have no fear of being branded as a troublemaker as I am not very easily intimidated by written threats and abuse, though I am amazed that councillors feel that they have to verbally attack residents because they raise what seem to be very valid concerns. Hardly the behaviour we wish to see from elected representatives, even if only a minority of the electorate actually voted for them.

I also appreciate your comment, Ian-Holt Roberts, but I again ask - what are the 10 concerned councillors actually DOING? There has to be a body that oversees the behaviour of elected officials, who are they and why are they not taking action?

Always a 708 Skinhead, My apologies, I agree, it is totally unacceptable to allow one person to become the sole recepient of this abuse.

As for the councillors posting - and they must be councillors or employees of the Town Council as they seem to have knowledge that members of the public would not have - you should be thoroughly ashamed that the only way you are able to respond is by verbal abuse. Grow up, do the right thing and resign, we do not need to be represented by children taking their ball home. The Civic Centre is a white elephant. Accept that.
[quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: Katiery. I came on these sites with an open mind with an interest in what my local council was doing, after what I was reading in local press. One thing that astounds me is the behaviour on these sites of some who give me good reason to suspect that they are Town Councillors, Now you examine these posts for yourself and draw your own conclusions. We have a few "nasty's " on here already, without looking over previous sites. Look at what has happened due to the purchase of The Civic Centre, do you wonder that some parishioners are having concerns including yourself, as to the mounting costs of a venture which we were assured would not cost us one penny. ? How long will these costs to the ratepayer go on mounting, before some action is taken to stem the tide ? Instead of challenging the Cavetown claims, which you would expect, what we are continuing to see is an attack on the credibility individuals themselves. Katiery, Take care, as it seems as though ratepayers asking questions will soon be branded as trouble makers, and fair game for the barrage of abuse, already dished out.[/p][/quote]The most sensible post yet. Thank you Gobbag Vooar. I have no fear of being branded as a troublemaker as I am not very easily intimidated by written threats and abuse, though I am amazed that councillors feel that they have to verbally attack residents because they raise what seem to be very valid concerns. Hardly the behaviour we wish to see from elected representatives, even if only a minority of the electorate actually voted for them. I also appreciate your comment, Ian-Holt Roberts, but I again ask - what are the 10 concerned councillors actually DOING? There has to be a body that oversees the behaviour of elected officials, who are they and why are they not taking action? Always a 708 Skinhead, My apologies, I agree, it is totally unacceptable to allow one person to become the sole recepient of this abuse. As for the councillors posting - and they must be councillors or employees of the Town Council as they seem to have knowledge that members of the public would not have - you should be thoroughly ashamed that the only way you are able to respond is by verbal abuse. Grow up, do the right thing and resign, we do not need to be represented by children taking their ball home. The Civic Centre is a white elephant. Accept that. Katiery

9:59am Fri 20 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Just a couple of things Sally Walker failed to mention in her ill advised tirade. 10 parishioners were escorted from the council meeting for attempting to film the council meeting by 9 police officers of sorts ,whilst the police at a later date apologized to our group saying they should never have been called not a word was said by Sally Walker . We had arranged to have a table at the local gala field where we intended to request Keighley people sign a petition to allow filming at council meetings only to be advised the day prior to the gala by the gala committee that they had been and this is their word BLACKMAILED into refusing us our table by the council, if they had not agreed the council would withdraw their participation which included the crowning of the gala queen by Sally Walker.I would add that one of the councilors was a local magistrate ,how does this fit in with responsibility of being a magistrate
K.N. Thursday 15th August 2013.Keighley Gala organisers caught in crossfire of bitter dispute between Keighley Town Council and its critics

“Gala chairman Andrew Jackson said: “We were put between a rock and a hard place and dragged into a fight we never wanted to be part of.”
He confirmed the gala committee initially agreed to Cavetown having a stand to promote its petition, which calls on the council to allow filming at its meetings and make its financial records more transparent.
“I was put in a very awkward position on Friday,” Mr Jackson said. “I was led to believe by one council member if we did not withdraw Cavetown’s stand the council would halt its involvement in the gala.”

ibid
(Town clerk Miggy Bailey)
“It is, of course, for the gala committee to decide whether or not it wishes to permit a campaigning group to have a stall. But the committee cannot reasonably expect the council to be happy to be involved at an event that appears to have been targeted by a group that has a record of a barrage of harassment against the council.”

And that purported `barrage of harassment ` is comprised of asking for information from the council which relates to how the council is being run and the massive losses being incurred by the civic centre, which we are all told would be self-financing and would no cost a penny on the precept.

So let us look at this another way. Why are parishioners facing a barrage of harassment due to an unjustified 72.6% precept hike to help bail out a civic centre parishioners did not ask for, and why are they facing further barrage of harassment in having to pay for the fact the councils incompetence and maladministration (L.G.O definition), needs to be investigated by the external audits? If the civic centre was all the council hyped it up to be, i.e self-financing, and if the council was run correctly, numerous objections would not have been found to send to the external auditors.

KTC, the blame game ain't working , the chickens are coming home to roost, and we all know what chickens produce beside eggs, and you right in it, and you created it all. Tick Tock
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: Just a couple of things Sally Walker failed to mention in her ill advised tirade. 10 parishioners were escorted from the council meeting for attempting to film the council meeting by 9 police officers of sorts ,whilst the police at a later date apologized to our group saying they should never have been called not a word was said by Sally Walker . We had arranged to have a table at the local gala field where we intended to request Keighley people sign a petition to allow filming at council meetings only to be advised the day prior to the gala by the gala committee that they had been and this is their word BLACKMAILED into refusing us our table by the council, if they had not agreed the council would withdraw their participation which included the crowning of the gala queen by Sally Walker.I would add that one of the councilors was a local magistrate ,how does this fit in with responsibility of being a magistrate[/p][/quote]K.N. Thursday 15th August 2013.Keighley Gala organisers caught in crossfire of bitter dispute between Keighley Town Council and its critics “Gala chairman Andrew Jackson said: “We were put between a rock and a hard place and dragged into a fight we never wanted to be part of.” He confirmed the gala committee initially agreed to Cavetown having a stand to promote its petition, which calls on the council to allow filming at its meetings and make its financial records more transparent. “I was put in a very awkward position on Friday,” Mr Jackson said. “I was led to believe by one council member if we did not withdraw Cavetown’s stand the council would halt its involvement in the gala.” ibid (Town clerk Miggy Bailey) “It is, of course, for the gala committee to decide whether or not it wishes to permit a campaigning group to have a stall. But the committee cannot reasonably expect the council to be happy to be involved at an event that appears to have been targeted by a group that has a record of a barrage of harassment against the council.” And that purported `barrage of harassment ` is comprised of asking for information from the council which relates to how the council is being run and the massive losses being incurred by the civic centre, which we are all told would be self-financing and would no cost a penny on the precept. So let us look at this another way. Why are parishioners facing a barrage of harassment due to an unjustified 72.6% precept hike to help bail out a civic centre parishioners did not ask for, and why are they facing further barrage of harassment in having to pay for the fact the councils incompetence and maladministration (L.G.O definition), needs to be investigated by the external audits? If the civic centre was all the council hyped it up to be, i.e self-financing, and if the council was run correctly, numerous objections would not have been found to send to the external auditors. KTC, the blame game ain't working , the chickens are coming home to roost, and we all know what chickens produce beside eggs, and you right in it, and you created it all. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

10:33am Fri 20 Dec 13

notthecivic says...

i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!!
i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!! notthecivic

10:42am Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

notthecivic wrote:
i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!!
What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?
[quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors? Katiery

10:54am Fri 20 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Katiery says.. 9:39am Fri 20 Dec 13
“I also appreciate your comment, Ian-Holt Roberts, but I again ask - what are the 10 concerned councillors actually DOING? There has to be a body that oversees the behaviour of elected officials, who are they and why are they not taking action? “

Unfortunately, there is no government body parish and town councils can be reported to, other than the external auditors for example. District councils can be taken to the Local Government Ombudsman, but this does not cover parish or town councils. And here is the worrying part of this, under the 2011 Localism Act parish and town council have been give greater powers but there is still no official means of redness for parishioners to help bring any errant councils to account. At the moment it is all down to parishioners to have to take on this responsibility, even down to parishioners to take their council to court if needs be. Being realistic, how many can afford to do that? Being realistic, how many councils know this?

If you have a complaint against a town or parish councillor you can make an official complaint to the relevant council and see if they can resolve it for you, if that fails you can take it to the Standards Committee.

In short Katiery, parishioners have little redness at the present moments, and that is why our efforts are so important to try and help bring about a change to this present unacceptable situation.

And I do agree with you here Katiery regarding the 10 concerned councillors, and I would extend that to ask why out of all the 30 councillors that make up KTC , the majority do not appear to be asking questions as to how the council got into this mess.
Katiery says.. 9:39am Fri 20 Dec 13 “I also appreciate your comment, Ian-Holt Roberts, but I again ask - what are the 10 concerned councillors actually DOING? There has to be a body that oversees the behaviour of elected officials, who are they and why are they not taking action? “ Unfortunately, there is no government body parish and town councils can be reported to, other than the external auditors for example. District councils can be taken to the Local Government Ombudsman, but this does not cover parish or town councils. And here is the worrying part of this, under the 2011 Localism Act parish and town council have been give greater powers but there is still no official means of redness for parishioners to help bring any errant councils to account. At the moment it is all down to parishioners to have to take on this responsibility, even down to parishioners to take their council to court if needs be. Being realistic, how many can afford to do that? Being realistic, how many councils know this? If you have a complaint against a town or parish councillor you can make an official complaint to the relevant council and see if they can resolve it for you, if that fails you can take it to the Standards Committee. In short Katiery, parishioners have little redness at the present moments, and that is why our efforts are so important to try and help bring about a change to this present unacceptable situation. And I do agree with you here Katiery regarding the 10 concerned councillors, and I would extend that to ask why out of all the 30 councillors that make up KTC , the majority do not appear to be asking questions as to how the council got into this mess. Graham Forsyth

11:15am Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Katiery wrote:
Gobbag Vooar wrote:
Katiery. I came on these sites with an open mind with an interest in what my local council was doing, after what I was reading in local press. One thing that astounds me is the behaviour on these sites of some who give me good reason to suspect that they are Town Councillors, Now you examine these posts for yourself and draw your own conclusions. We have a few "nasty's " on here already, without looking over previous sites.
Look at what has happened due to the purchase of The Civic Centre, do you wonder that some parishioners are having concerns including yourself, as to the mounting costs of a venture which we were assured would not cost us one penny. ? How long will these costs to the ratepayer go on mounting, before some action is taken to stem the tide ?

Instead of challenging the Cavetown claims, which you would expect, what we are continuing to see is an attack on the credibility individuals themselves.

Katiery, Take care, as it seems as though ratepayers asking questions will soon be branded as trouble makers, and fair game for the barrage of abuse, already dished out.
The most sensible post yet. Thank you Gobbag Vooar. I have no fear of being branded as a troublemaker as I am not very easily intimidated by written threats and abuse, though I am amazed that councillors feel that they have to verbally attack residents because they raise what seem to be very valid concerns. Hardly the behaviour we wish to see from elected representatives, even if only a minority of the electorate actually voted for them.

I also appreciate your comment, Ian-Holt Roberts, but I again ask - what are the 10 concerned councillors actually DOING? There has to be a body that oversees the behaviour of elected officials, who are they and why are they not taking action?

Always a 708 Skinhead, My apologies, I agree, it is totally unacceptable to allow one person to become the sole recepient of this abuse.

As for the councillors posting - and they must be councillors or employees of the Town Council as they seem to have knowledge that members of the public would not have - you should be thoroughly ashamed that the only way you are able to respond is by verbal abuse. Grow up, do the right thing and resign, we do not need to be represented by children taking their ball home. The Civic Centre is a white elephant. Accept that.
Katiery with regards there has to be a body ,that oversees the behavior of elected officials ,the answer is I just do not know ,perhaps one of our members will answer this .with regards the 10 councilors they are starting to ask questions and stand up to the inner sanctum of the council ,it may be only my opinion but I do believe that fear is involved ,you can see on here how these councilors react to questions or suggestions it is just the same at council meetings ,hence one of our reasons for filming .Nothing is sacred despite the fact that I am disabled suffer from dyslexia have cataracts in both eyes they constantly harass me over my misuse of English .These are councilors. as electorates of our town we should not have to endure this and hopefully we will not have to for much longer.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: Katiery. I came on these sites with an open mind with an interest in what my local council was doing, after what I was reading in local press. One thing that astounds me is the behaviour on these sites of some who give me good reason to suspect that they are Town Councillors, Now you examine these posts for yourself and draw your own conclusions. We have a few "nasty's " on here already, without looking over previous sites. Look at what has happened due to the purchase of The Civic Centre, do you wonder that some parishioners are having concerns including yourself, as to the mounting costs of a venture which we were assured would not cost us one penny. ? How long will these costs to the ratepayer go on mounting, before some action is taken to stem the tide ? Instead of challenging the Cavetown claims, which you would expect, what we are continuing to see is an attack on the credibility individuals themselves. Katiery, Take care, as it seems as though ratepayers asking questions will soon be branded as trouble makers, and fair game for the barrage of abuse, already dished out.[/p][/quote]The most sensible post yet. Thank you Gobbag Vooar. I have no fear of being branded as a troublemaker as I am not very easily intimidated by written threats and abuse, though I am amazed that councillors feel that they have to verbally attack residents because they raise what seem to be very valid concerns. Hardly the behaviour we wish to see from elected representatives, even if only a minority of the electorate actually voted for them. I also appreciate your comment, Ian-Holt Roberts, but I again ask - what are the 10 concerned councillors actually DOING? There has to be a body that oversees the behaviour of elected officials, who are they and why are they not taking action? Always a 708 Skinhead, My apologies, I agree, it is totally unacceptable to allow one person to become the sole recepient of this abuse. As for the councillors posting - and they must be councillors or employees of the Town Council as they seem to have knowledge that members of the public would not have - you should be thoroughly ashamed that the only way you are able to respond is by verbal abuse. Grow up, do the right thing and resign, we do not need to be represented by children taking their ball home. The Civic Centre is a white elephant. Accept that.[/p][/quote]Katiery with regards there has to be a body ,that oversees the behavior of elected officials ,the answer is I just do not know ,perhaps one of our members will answer this .with regards the 10 councilors they are starting to ask questions and stand up to the inner sanctum of the council ,it may be only my opinion but I do believe that fear is involved ,you can see on here how these councilors react to questions or suggestions it is just the same at council meetings ,hence one of our reasons for filming .Nothing is sacred despite the fact that I am disabled suffer from dyslexia have cataracts in both eyes they constantly harass me over my misuse of English .These are councilors. as electorates of our town we should not have to endure this and hopefully we will not have to for much longer. Ian-Holt Roberts

11:17am Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Katiery wrote:
notthecivic wrote:
i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!!
What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?
There are many motives hidden behind the facade presented by the Cavetowners .
All is not what is seems many of them have or had connections with KTC ,
personal vendettas, yes personal vendettas are clear motives.

Do i need to list them Cavetowners or can you discredit your selves further by not directly answering questions i have posed regarding Cavetown in the past .

Openness and Transparency what you ask of others is not something
you seem able to undertake yourselves.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?[/p][/quote]There are many motives hidden behind the facade presented by the Cavetowners . All is not what is seems many of them have or had connections with KTC , personal vendettas, yes personal vendettas are clear motives. Do i need to list them Cavetowners or can you discredit your selves further by not directly answering questions i have posed regarding Cavetown in the past . Openness and Transparency what you ask of others is not something you seem able to undertake yourselves. badgergate

11:25am Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

notthecivic wrote:
i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!!
That my Facebook page is open to the Public to view is a matter of choice. I could alter the settings should I prefer it not be seen. Obviously anyone who does choose to view my FB page will not only see that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the ridiculous claims that I am a member of any political groups BNP, EDL or any of the others. To suggest that I am associated with those mentioned is absurd. As an Expat living in a Country not of my Birth I am, by definition, an immigrant.
Stupid anonymous councillor.
Of course I have ensured that any visitor to my Timeline will immediately view several pieces of correspondence which I have received with include insults, abuse and threats all provided by this years incumbent, inept councillors.

I doubt the KN would allow the contents of some of these emails to be reproduced on these threads due to the vulgarity and obscenities they include, but the anonymous councillor has managed to find a way to let the public sight these words written under their real names that I had not yet considered.

No prizes for guessing which one corresponds to which nom de plume on here. But I am considering creating an online Poll for which one seems to excel in stupidity.

why not invest your time in researching ways to resolve the current fiscal nightmare instead of posting lies under a pseudonym. I have obviously caused you much embarassment councillor for you to target me so vehemently.
I look forward to doing so again.


Tick Tock
[quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]That my Facebook page is open to the Public to view is a matter of choice. I could alter the settings should I prefer it not be seen. Obviously anyone who does choose to view my FB page will not only see that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the ridiculous claims that I am a member of any political groups BNP, EDL or any of the others. To suggest that I am associated with those mentioned is absurd. As an Expat living in a Country not of my Birth I am, by definition, an immigrant. Stupid anonymous councillor. Of course I have ensured that any visitor to my Timeline will immediately view several pieces of correspondence which I have received with include insults, abuse and threats all provided by this years incumbent, inept councillors. I doubt the KN would allow the contents of some of these emails to be reproduced on these threads due to the vulgarity and obscenities they include, but the anonymous councillor has managed to find a way to let the public sight these words written under their real names that I had not yet considered. No prizes for guessing which one corresponds to which nom de plume on here. But I am considering creating an online Poll for which one seems to excel in stupidity. why not invest your time in researching ways to resolve the current fiscal nightmare instead of posting lies under a pseudonym. I have obviously caused you much embarassment councillor for you to target me so vehemently. I look forward to doing so again. Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead

11:45am Fri 20 Dec 13

Four-O-Clubs says...

Katiery wrote:
notthecivic wrote:
i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!!
What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?
What does an edl or bnp facebook page look like any way? My guess notthecivic is either a councillor or somebody working for the council like the other muppets on here, hiding behind a screen name. Wouldn't be surprised if notthecivic, badgergate & badgergate are the same person! Why would they/he/her be so hell bent on simply trying to(and not very well in my opinion) discredit these "cavetowners" with out any substance? It's pretty much nothing more than D grade trolling!
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?[/p][/quote]What does an edl or bnp facebook page look like any way? My guess notthecivic is either a councillor or somebody working for the council like the other muppets on here, hiding behind a screen name. Wouldn't be surprised if notthecivic, badgergate & badgergate are the same person! Why would they/he/her be so hell bent on simply trying to(and not very well in my opinion) discredit these "cavetowners" with out any substance? It's pretty much nothing more than D grade trolling! Four-O-Clubs

11:46am Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Interestingly though, while on the subject of people with symathetic views towards the BNP, back in 2007 when the current councillor Tony Wright was acting as the puppet leader of the clowncil in the role of Mayor, he graciously gave a 6 month leave of abscense to a councillor who had allegience to the BNP party.
Obviously granting someone such an extended period of time to pursue their Party Political interests instead of requesting their resignation due to this clearly being a failing by this BNP councillor to perform their duties shows that Tony Wright is more than prepared to accommodate those of this political persuasion.
I personally believe he should of acted with concern for the Best Interests of the Public rather than make allowances based on his own Political views.
this demonstrates how far back this council has been letting the Public down.
No wonder it is in such a mess right now.

Tick Tock
Interestingly though, while on the subject of people with symathetic views towards the BNP, back in 2007 when the current councillor Tony Wright was acting as the puppet leader of the clowncil in the role of Mayor, he graciously gave a 6 month leave of abscense to a councillor who had allegience to the BNP party. Obviously granting someone such an extended period of time to pursue their Party Political interests instead of requesting their resignation due to this clearly being a failing by this BNP councillor to perform their duties shows that Tony Wright is more than prepared to accommodate those of this political persuasion. I personally believe he should of acted with concern for the Best Interests of the Public rather than make allowances based on his own Political views. this demonstrates how far back this council has been letting the Public down. No wonder it is in such a mess right now. Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead

11:47am Fri 20 Dec 13

Four-O-Clubs says...

Four-O-Clubs wrote:
Katiery wrote:
notthecivic wrote:
i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!!
What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?
What does an edl or bnp facebook page look like any way? My guess notthecivic is either a councillor or somebody working for the council like the other muppets on here, hiding behind a screen name. Wouldn't be surprised if notthecivic, badgergate & badgergate are the same person! Why would they/he/her be so hell bent on simply trying to(and not very well in my opinion) discredit these "cavetowners" with out any substance? It's pretty much nothing more than D grade trolling!
Switch out one of the badgergates for a littlegreenman
[quote][p][bold]Four-O-Clubs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?[/p][/quote]What does an edl or bnp facebook page look like any way? My guess notthecivic is either a councillor or somebody working for the council like the other muppets on here, hiding behind a screen name. Wouldn't be surprised if notthecivic, badgergate & badgergate are the same person! Why would they/he/her be so hell bent on simply trying to(and not very well in my opinion) discredit these "cavetowners" with out any substance? It's pretty much nothing more than D grade trolling![/p][/quote]Switch out one of the badgergates for a littlegreenman Four-O-Clubs

11:47am Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

I would ask my friends on cavetown not to be drawn into retaliating to the lies that these councilors are attempting to distract us with they attempt to do it every time they feel uncomfortable with the way the threads are proceeding . Sally Walker is not going to get away with her henchmen shielding her from the truth ,She as been a complete failure all year in her actions and the feeble way she as attempted to run the meetings.
I would ask my friends on cavetown not to be drawn into retaliating to the lies that these councilors are attempting to distract us with they attempt to do it every time they feel uncomfortable with the way the threads are proceeding . Sally Walker is not going to get away with her henchmen shielding her from the truth ,She as been a complete failure all year in her actions and the feeble way she as attempted to run the meetings. Ian-Holt Roberts

11:52am Fri 20 Dec 13

Four-O-Clubs says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Interestingly though, while on the subject of people with symathetic views towards the BNP, back in 2007 when the current councillor Tony Wright was acting as the puppet leader of the clowncil in the role of Mayor, he graciously gave a 6 month leave of abscense to a councillor who had allegience to the BNP party.
Obviously granting someone such an extended period of time to pursue their Party Political interests instead of requesting their resignation due to this clearly being a failing by this BNP councillor to perform their duties shows that Tony Wright is more than prepared to accommodate those of this political persuasion.
I personally believe he should of acted with concern for the Best Interests of the Public rather than make allowances based on his own Political views.
this demonstrates how far back this council has been letting the Public down.
No wonder it is in such a mess right now.

Tick Tock
It's funny how the muppets claim (what seems to be, in my eyes) a left of the middle group such as the cavetowners to be as far right as can be. They obviously don't know the difference between their left and right. So what ever you do, never ask them for directions!
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Interestingly though, while on the subject of people with symathetic views towards the BNP, back in 2007 when the current councillor Tony Wright was acting as the puppet leader of the clowncil in the role of Mayor, he graciously gave a 6 month leave of abscense to a councillor who had allegience to the BNP party. Obviously granting someone such an extended period of time to pursue their Party Political interests instead of requesting their resignation due to this clearly being a failing by this BNP councillor to perform their duties shows that Tony Wright is more than prepared to accommodate those of this political persuasion. I personally believe he should of acted with concern for the Best Interests of the Public rather than make allowances based on his own Political views. this demonstrates how far back this council has been letting the Public down. No wonder it is in such a mess right now. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]It's funny how the muppets claim (what seems to be, in my eyes) a left of the middle group such as the cavetowners to be as far right as can be. They obviously don't know the difference between their left and right. So what ever you do, never ask them for directions! Four-O-Clubs

11:55am Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Interestingly though, while on the subject of people with symathetic views towards the BNP, back in 2007 when the current councillor Tony Wright was acting as the puppet leader of the clowncil in the role of Mayor, he graciously gave a 6 month leave of abscense to a councillor who had allegience to the BNP party.
Obviously granting someone such an extended period of time to pursue their Party Political interests instead of requesting their resignation due to this clearly being a failing by this BNP councillor to perform their duties shows that Tony Wright is more than prepared to accommodate those of this political persuasion.
I personally believe he should of acted with concern for the Best Interests of the Public rather than make allowances based on his own Political views.
this demonstrates how far back this council has been letting the Public down.
No wonder it is in such a mess right now.

Tick Tock
Interesting point you make there regarding absence I wonder if SALLY walker as given another councilor named Wright leave of absence. as a councilor said to me this week he is refereed to as the invisible man
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Interestingly though, while on the subject of people with symathetic views towards the BNP, back in 2007 when the current councillor Tony Wright was acting as the puppet leader of the clowncil in the role of Mayor, he graciously gave a 6 month leave of abscense to a councillor who had allegience to the BNP party. Obviously granting someone such an extended period of time to pursue their Party Political interests instead of requesting their resignation due to this clearly being a failing by this BNP councillor to perform their duties shows that Tony Wright is more than prepared to accommodate those of this political persuasion. I personally believe he should of acted with concern for the Best Interests of the Public rather than make allowances based on his own Political views. this demonstrates how far back this council has been letting the Public down. No wonder it is in such a mess right now. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Interesting point you make there regarding absence I wonder if SALLY walker as given another councilor named Wright leave of absence. as a councilor said to me this week he is refereed to as the invisible man Ian-Holt Roberts

11:58am Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

So we have a body of elected representatives, some of whom seem to feel that abuse and threats are the way to deal with enquiries and some of whom are so intimidated by these people that they do absolutely nothing because they are threatened, but no form of redress for these actions? Nowhere to make a complaint, no one to oversee this behavior?

I undertsand that the Civic Centre is loosing money rapidly. Why can't the Town Council just admit this, admit that they were wrong, rather than blaming legitimate enquiries about their behavior and spending for yet another huge precept rise which no one wants to pay.

I don't often agree with Kris Hopkins but in this case he is correct in his statement. Wanton throwing away of public funds is a crime and one that should be controlled in whatever way possible. If that way is by raising issues in public then that is what must be done. The Town Council have a clerk, part of her job is to answer public enquiries, as is the job of the councillors. If it costs so much to supply information then maybe we really do need a rethink about what point there is in having a Town Council at all.

When barely hidden personal jibes are the only response from whomever is posting for the Town Council then we are in a very sorry mess that needs to be sorted out and fast. What the heck has anyones spelling got to do with it, or even their personal facebook pages? Pathetic and ridiculous posts having digs at people is hardly the answer. The concerns seem to be real, how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses?
Why are there no posts here from someone who knows the answer to these questions? People of Keighley will not continually accept precept rises without wanting answers as to where the money is going and why.
So we have a body of elected representatives, some of whom seem to feel that abuse and threats are the way to deal with enquiries and some of whom are so intimidated by these people that they do absolutely nothing because they are threatened, but no form of redress for these actions? Nowhere to make a complaint, no one to oversee this behavior? I undertsand that the Civic Centre is loosing money rapidly. Why can't the Town Council just admit this, admit that they were wrong, rather than blaming legitimate enquiries about their behavior and spending for yet another huge precept rise which no one wants to pay. I don't often agree with Kris Hopkins but in this case he is correct in his statement. Wanton throwing away of public funds is a crime and one that should be controlled in whatever way possible. If that way is by raising issues in public then that is what must be done. The Town Council have a clerk, part of her job is to answer public enquiries, as is the job of the councillors. If it costs so much to supply information then maybe we really do need a rethink about what point there is in having a Town Council at all. When barely hidden personal jibes are the only response from whomever is posting for the Town Council then we are in a very sorry mess that needs to be sorted out and fast. What the heck has anyones spelling got to do with it, or even their personal facebook pages? Pathetic and ridiculous posts having digs at people is hardly the answer. The concerns seem to be real, how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses? Why are there no posts here from someone who knows the answer to these questions? People of Keighley will not continually accept precept rises without wanting answers as to where the money is going and why. Katiery

12:02pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Four-O-Clubs says...

To the councillors on here that read this,

Besides an annual rate hike, what is your contingency plan to generate revenue to pay for the failing civic centre? Have you got data to indicate what has lead to the failure? What market research was done in the preliminary stages of the redevelopment, of the CC, to indicate it would be a successful project?
To the councillors on here that read this, Besides an annual rate hike, what is your contingency plan to generate revenue to pay for the failing civic centre? Have you got data to indicate what has lead to the failure? What market research was done in the preliminary stages of the redevelopment, of the CC, to indicate it would be a successful project? Four-O-Clubs

12:05pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Four-O-Clubs says...

"how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses?
Why are there no posts here from someone who knows the answer to these questions? People of Keighley will not continually accept precept rises without wanting answers as to where the money is going and why."

Haha Touche. You just beat me to it.

Hear Hear!!
"how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses? Why are there no posts here from someone who knows the answer to these questions? People of Keighley will not continually accept precept rises without wanting answers as to where the money is going and why." Haha Touche. You just beat me to it. Hear Hear!! Four-O-Clubs

12:14pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Katiery wrote:
So we have a body of elected representatives, some of whom seem to feel that abuse and threats are the way to deal with enquiries and some of whom are so intimidated by these people that they do absolutely nothing because they are threatened, but no form of redress for these actions? Nowhere to make a complaint, no one to oversee this behavior?

I undertsand that the Civic Centre is loosing money rapidly. Why can't the Town Council just admit this, admit that they were wrong, rather than blaming legitimate enquiries about their behavior and spending for yet another huge precept rise which no one wants to pay.

I don't often agree with Kris Hopkins but in this case he is correct in his statement. Wanton throwing away of public funds is a crime and one that should be controlled in whatever way possible. If that way is by raising issues in public then that is what must be done. The Town Council have a clerk, part of her job is to answer public enquiries, as is the job of the councillors. If it costs so much to supply information then maybe we really do need a rethink about what point there is in having a Town Council at all.

When barely hidden personal jibes are the only response from whomever is posting for the Town Council then we are in a very sorry mess that needs to be sorted out and fast. What the heck has anyones spelling got to do with it, or even their personal facebook pages? Pathetic and ridiculous posts having digs at people is hardly the answer. The concerns seem to be real, how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses?
Why are there no posts here from someone who knows the answer to these questions? People of Keighley will not continually accept precept rises without wanting answers as to where the money is going and why.
i suggested to a councilor this week that the civic center should be shut down he came out with the stock answer that the building would deteriorate and it would cost money to maintain it ,any building will deteriorate be it used or empty but not to the tune of £250,000 per year when I suggested they hand the building back he looked mortified ,no business sense or any other suggestion apart from lets carry on and see.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: So we have a body of elected representatives, some of whom seem to feel that abuse and threats are the way to deal with enquiries and some of whom are so intimidated by these people that they do absolutely nothing because they are threatened, but no form of redress for these actions? Nowhere to make a complaint, no one to oversee this behavior? I undertsand that the Civic Centre is loosing money rapidly. Why can't the Town Council just admit this, admit that they were wrong, rather than blaming legitimate enquiries about their behavior and spending for yet another huge precept rise which no one wants to pay. I don't often agree with Kris Hopkins but in this case he is correct in his statement. Wanton throwing away of public funds is a crime and one that should be controlled in whatever way possible. If that way is by raising issues in public then that is what must be done. The Town Council have a clerk, part of her job is to answer public enquiries, as is the job of the councillors. If it costs so much to supply information then maybe we really do need a rethink about what point there is in having a Town Council at all. When barely hidden personal jibes are the only response from whomever is posting for the Town Council then we are in a very sorry mess that needs to be sorted out and fast. What the heck has anyones spelling got to do with it, or even their personal facebook pages? Pathetic and ridiculous posts having digs at people is hardly the answer. The concerns seem to be real, how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses? Why are there no posts here from someone who knows the answer to these questions? People of Keighley will not continually accept precept rises without wanting answers as to where the money is going and why.[/p][/quote]i suggested to a councilor this week that the civic center should be shut down he came out with the stock answer that the building would deteriorate and it would cost money to maintain it ,any building will deteriorate be it used or empty but not to the tune of £250,000 per year when I suggested they hand the building back he looked mortified ,no business sense or any other suggestion apart from lets carry on and see. Ian-Holt Roberts

12:22pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Katiery,
You have asked some very valid questions-
The concerns seem to be real, how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses?

It may surprise you to know that it was asking very similar questions less than a year ago which led to the formation of Cavetown Council.

While you have clearly stated that you "detest" the name Cavetown, it seems this has not deterred you from listening to our point of view on this subject.
You have my sincere thanks for doing this.

To try and shed some light on your questions I will offer a brief answer based on the research undertaken by Cavetown Members-

Q.
how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money?

A.
The Precept.
Money obtained from the sale of the Skipton Road Allotments.
Accounting Malpractice.

Q.
Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses?

A.
The council refuses to acknowledge there is a serious issue and that the Civic Centre is amounting massive losses as each day goes by. They have even claimed that the Centre is not running at a loss but that it has a "Budget Requirement".
I can only interpret this as meaning that as long as there is a bottomless pit of money funded by the Precept Rise each year, then it will never be considered by the council to be making a loss.

To put the Civic Centre up for sale would be an admission by the council that they were wrong. Due to the current legal loophole which Town and Parish Councils enjoy, they consider themselves a Law unto themselves and are well aware that there is no government department who has the authority to deal with any wrongdoing on their part. he concerns of the Public are the only thing which can be used to prevent the council doing whatever it wishes. For example, if the council now chose to purchase another building, say the old college building and create a farfetched fantasy of a museum there, then there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. All they require is a business plan, however flawed and a loan from the PWLB will be theirs.
That the business plan can then be thrown out of the window and the running costs and loan be serviced by the Public in the form of the Precept is in their eyes irrelevant.
Those who raise their objections are simply insulted, abused, threatened into submission along the way and misleading and false statements issued without answers to questions being provided.

They have what can be termed "A very cushty little set up going on at KTC".
A small minority sit on the relevant committees, control the flow of information to full council and bully the rest.

To protect this cushty number they are prepared to fight very dirty.
T
Katiery, You have asked some very valid questions- The concerns seem to be real, how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses? It may surprise you to know that it was asking very similar questions less than a year ago which led to the formation of Cavetown Council. While you have clearly stated that you "detest" the name Cavetown, it seems this has not deterred you from listening to our point of view on this subject. You have my sincere thanks for doing this. To try and shed some light on your questions I will offer a brief answer based on the research undertaken by Cavetown Members- Q. how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? A. The Precept. Money obtained from the sale of the Skipton Road Allotments. Accounting Malpractice. Q. Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses? A. The council refuses to acknowledge there is a serious issue and that the Civic Centre is amounting massive losses as each day goes by. They have even claimed that the Centre is not running at a loss but that it has a "Budget Requirement". I can only interpret this as meaning that as long as there is a bottomless pit of money funded by the Precept Rise each year, then it will never be considered by the council to be making a loss. To put the Civic Centre up for sale would be an admission by the council that they were wrong. Due to the current legal loophole which Town and Parish Councils enjoy, they consider themselves a Law unto themselves and are well aware that there is no government department who has the authority to deal with any wrongdoing on their part. he concerns of the Public are the only thing which can be used to prevent the council doing whatever it wishes. For example, if the council now chose to purchase another building, say the old college building and create a farfetched fantasy of a museum there, then there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. All they require is a business plan, however flawed and a loan from the PWLB will be theirs. That the business plan can then be thrown out of the window and the running costs and loan be serviced by the Public in the form of the Precept is in their eyes irrelevant. Those who raise their objections are simply insulted, abused, threatened into submission along the way and misleading and false statements issued without answers to questions being provided. They have what can be termed "A very cushty little set up going on at KTC". A small minority sit on the relevant committees, control the flow of information to full council and bully the rest. To protect this cushty number they are prepared to fight very dirty. T Always a 708 Skinhead

12:24pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

i suggested to a councilor this week that the civic center should be shut down he came out with the stock answer that the building would deteriorate and it would cost money to maintain it ,any building will deteriorate be it used or empty but not to the tune of £250,000 per year when I suggested they hand the building back he looked mortified ,no business sense or any other suggestion apart from lets carry on and see."

Let's NOT carry on and see! The building deteriorated prior to the Town Council purchasing it. It looks far better now than it did then, but it is really not worth the huge amount of money it is costing - money we were assured would not be added to the precept. Someone with a brain needs to take hold of this issue and sell the thing, remove the liability and let us keep hold of a little bit of our own money, the Government is taking more than enough already, thank you.

I am still waiting for a response to my previous questions and I expect I will be waiting for a very long time too!
i suggested to a councilor this week that the civic center should be shut down he came out with the stock answer that the building would deteriorate and it would cost money to maintain it ,any building will deteriorate be it used or empty but not to the tune of £250,000 per year when I suggested they hand the building back he looked mortified ,no business sense or any other suggestion apart from lets carry on and see." Let's NOT carry on and see! The building deteriorated prior to the Town Council purchasing it. It looks far better now than it did then, but it is really not worth the huge amount of money it is costing - money we were assured would not be added to the precept. Someone with a brain needs to take hold of this issue and sell the thing, remove the liability and let us keep hold of a little bit of our own money, the Government is taking more than enough already, thank you. I am still waiting for a response to my previous questions and I expect I will be waiting for a very long time too! Katiery

12:27pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Four-O-Clubs wrote:
"how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses?
Why are there no posts here from someone who knows the answer to these questions? People of Keighley will not continually accept precept rises without wanting answers as to where the money is going and why."

Haha Touche. You just beat me to it.

Hear Hear!!
I doubt very much if the civic center can be self financing they or should I say we are paying £55,000 per year just to purchase it for 50 years ,There are no tenants in there we are now having to pay for the cafe to be run and pay for renting the furniture and kitchen equipment etc ,according to the council they considered removing the receptionist salary of £23,000 from the civic center to another listing but then said that the public would realize what they were doing that was the only thing they have been right in .
[quote][p][bold]Four-O-Clubs[/bold] wrote: "how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses? Why are there no posts here from someone who knows the answer to these questions? People of Keighley will not continually accept precept rises without wanting answers as to where the money is going and why." Haha Touche. You just beat me to it. Hear Hear!![/p][/quote]I doubt very much if the civic center can be self financing they or should I say we are paying £55,000 per year just to purchase it for 50 years ,There are no tenants in there we are now having to pay for the cafe to be run and pay for renting the furniture and kitchen equipment etc ,according to the council they considered removing the receptionist salary of £23,000 from the civic center to another listing but then said that the public would realize what they were doing that was the only thing they have been right in . Ian-Holt Roberts

12:39pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Sutton Lad says...

Is there an itemized breakdown of just how the Cavetowners have allegedly cost 50 grand?

Just wondering what they could have done to add up to such an amount.

If, as the Mayor says, 50 grand has been spent addressing the issues raised by Cavetown, then either Cavetown have sent upwards of 1000 FOI requests this year, or Keighley is getting shockingly poor value for money from it's Town Council.
And even if it was 1000 FOI requests that would still be a cost of 50 pounds per request, which given that it is little more than a copy of existing
records, seems a bit excessive.

So where has this 50 grand been spent then?
Is there an itemized breakdown of just how the Cavetowners have allegedly cost 50 grand? Just wondering what they could have done to add up to such an amount. If, as the Mayor says, 50 grand has been spent addressing the issues raised by Cavetown, then either Cavetown have sent upwards of 1000 FOI requests this year, or Keighley is getting shockingly poor value for money from it's Town Council. And even if it was 1000 FOI requests that would still be a cost of 50 pounds per request, which given that it is little more than a copy of existing records, seems a bit excessive. So where has this 50 grand been spent then? Sutton Lad

12:45pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Sutton Lad wrote:
Is there an itemized breakdown of just how the Cavetowners have allegedly cost 50 grand?

Just wondering what they could have done to add up to such an amount.

If, as the Mayor says, 50 grand has been spent addressing the issues raised by Cavetown, then either Cavetown have sent upwards of 1000 FOI requests this year, or Keighley is getting shockingly poor value for money from it's Town Council.
And even if it was 1000 FOI requests that would still be a cost of 50 pounds per request, which given that it is little more than a copy of existing
records, seems a bit excessive.

So where has this 50 grand been spent then?
It certainly is not as a result of answering them they fail to answer most of the ones sent to them ,Sally Walker would be best to answer this after she spoke to her script writer but she may be referring to the cost of the external auditors who will have to be paid .I t makes you wonder how the internal auditors missed all of the items that the external auditors are investigating?.
[quote][p][bold]Sutton Lad[/bold] wrote: Is there an itemized breakdown of just how the Cavetowners have allegedly cost 50 grand? Just wondering what they could have done to add up to such an amount. If, as the Mayor says, 50 grand has been spent addressing the issues raised by Cavetown, then either Cavetown have sent upwards of 1000 FOI requests this year, or Keighley is getting shockingly poor value for money from it's Town Council. And even if it was 1000 FOI requests that would still be a cost of 50 pounds per request, which given that it is little more than a copy of existing records, seems a bit excessive. So where has this 50 grand been spent then?[/p][/quote]It certainly is not as a result of answering them they fail to answer most of the ones sent to them ,Sally Walker would be best to answer this after she spoke to her script writer but she may be referring to the cost of the external auditors who will have to be paid .I t makes you wonder how the internal auditors missed all of the items that the external auditors are investigating?. Ian-Holt Roberts

12:46pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

In some of these posting you will see the reference to maladministration (L.G.O definition). To make clear what the definition of maladministration the L.G.O, use I have produce the list. You may of course read it for here.
http://www.lgo.org.u
k/guide-for-advisers
/maladministration-s
ervice-failure/

delay
incorrect action or failure to take any action
failure to follow procedures or the law
failure to provide information
inadequate record-keeping
failure to investigate
failure to reply
misleading or inaccurate statements
inadequate liaison
inadequate consultation
broken promises
The following are a few of the objections sent to the external auditors.

Evidence of substantial amounts of money paid on scraps of paper

Invoices that had no address.

Payments that were clearly wages, in that they were paid for the same job week in and week out, but that never went through payroll.

Budget Actuals and commitments that did not add up correctly to the projected actual column. In many cases by thousands of pounds and in some cases projected actual income being less than what was actually received.

The council agreed a loan to the Police Experience which was outside of its powers

The council trades outside of its powers. Under the Localism Act 2011, councils wishing to trade should do so as a Company registered with companies house or similar.

At least one committee has operated and incurred substantial amounts of expenditure without it ever being declared to the public.

That should help make clear why maladministration is mentioned in conjunction with KTC, and this is also why numerous objections had to be sent to the external auditors. Seeing as this maladministration was done by the same council Cllr Sally Walkers is presently the mayor of, it is also very clear the blame for the £30 -£50 auditor bill lies with the council. Tick Tock
In some of these posting you will see the reference to maladministration (L.G.O definition). To make clear what the definition of maladministration the L.G.O, use I have produce the list. You may of course read it for here. http://www.lgo.org.u k/guide-for-advisers /maladministration-s ervice-failure/ delay incorrect action or failure to take any action failure to follow procedures or the law failure to provide information inadequate record-keeping failure to investigate failure to reply misleading or inaccurate statements inadequate liaison inadequate consultation broken promises The following are a few of the objections sent to the external auditors. Evidence of substantial amounts of money paid on scraps of paper Invoices that had no address. Payments that were clearly wages, in that they were paid for the same job week in and week out, but that never went through payroll. Budget Actuals and commitments that did not add up correctly to the projected actual column. In many cases by thousands of pounds and in some cases projected actual income being less than what was actually received. The council agreed a loan to the Police Experience which was outside of its powers The council trades outside of its powers. Under the Localism Act 2011, councils wishing to trade should do so as a Company registered with companies house or similar. At least one committee has operated and incurred substantial amounts of expenditure without it ever being declared to the public. That should help make clear why maladministration is mentioned in conjunction with KTC, and this is also why numerous objections had to be sent to the external auditors. Seeing as this maladministration was done by the same council Cllr Sally Walkers is presently the mayor of, it is also very clear the blame for the £30 -£50 auditor bill lies with the council. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

12:46pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Sutton Lad says...

Sorry; should be itemised with an S.

Pesky Mac is on USA settings for auto-correct spelling.
Sorry; should be itemised with an S. Pesky Mac is on USA settings for auto-correct spelling. Sutton Lad

12:54pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

Always a 708 Skinhead, thank you for that very sensible answer. I am happy to listen to anyone who has a valid point. Whilst not liking the name, Cavetown seem to have taken on board issues which have been ignored or bypassed by members of the public - and I include myself - for a very long time.

Personal vendettas - really? - aside the Town Council just cannot go on wasting public funds on pointless projects. Please God that they do not make an attempt to buy the second white elephant in Keighley. We just cannot afford such decisions! Who are their advisors? Who in the Town Council has the knowledge and training to decide such matters? If no one then they need to desist, rapidly!

It is truly frightening to know that there are no checks and controls at all and that they can do as they wish, when they wish, with our money.
Always a 708 Skinhead, thank you for that very sensible answer. I am happy to listen to anyone who has a valid point. Whilst not liking the name, Cavetown seem to have taken on board issues which have been ignored or bypassed by members of the public - and I include myself - for a very long time. Personal vendettas - really? - aside the Town Council just cannot go on wasting public funds on pointless projects. Please God that they do not make an attempt to buy the second white elephant in Keighley. We just cannot afford such decisions! Who are their advisors? Who in the Town Council has the knowledge and training to decide such matters? If no one then they need to desist, rapidly! It is truly frightening to know that there are no checks and controls at all and that they can do as they wish, when they wish, with our money. Katiery

1:24pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Sutton Lad wrote:
Sorry; should be itemised with an S.

Pesky Mac is on USA settings for auto-correct spelling.
Sutton lad I went to Holy croft school if I had spell,t that word and only got the s wrong I would have been elated but it would not have stopped them hitting me ,what a waste of time that was it did not make any difference.
[quote][p][bold]Sutton Lad[/bold] wrote: Sorry; should be itemised with an S. Pesky Mac is on USA settings for auto-correct spelling.[/p][/quote]Sutton lad I went to Holy croft school if I had spell,t that word and only got the s wrong I would have been elated but it would not have stopped them hitting me ,what a waste of time that was it did not make any difference. Ian-Holt Roberts

1:29pm Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Katiery wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead, thank you for that very sensible answer. I am happy to listen to anyone who has a valid point. Whilst not liking the name, Cavetown seem to have taken on board issues which have been ignored or bypassed by members of the public - and I include myself - for a very long time.

Personal vendettas - really? - aside the Town Council just cannot go on wasting public funds on pointless projects. Please God that they do not make an attempt to buy the second white elephant in Keighley. We just cannot afford such decisions! Who are their advisors? Who in the Town Council has the knowledge and training to decide such matters? If no one then they need to desist, rapidly!

It is truly frightening to know that there are no checks and controls at all and that they can do as they wish, when they wish, with our money.
YES PERSONAL VENDETTAS

HARASSMENT
STALKING
WHISTLEBLOWING
FAILED COUNCILLORS
BUSINESS CONNECTIONS

ALL DENIED BY THE CAVETOWN ELITE
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Always a 708 Skinhead, thank you for that very sensible answer. I am happy to listen to anyone who has a valid point. Whilst not liking the name, Cavetown seem to have taken on board issues which have been ignored or bypassed by members of the public - and I include myself - for a very long time. Personal vendettas - really? - aside the Town Council just cannot go on wasting public funds on pointless projects. Please God that they do not make an attempt to buy the second white elephant in Keighley. We just cannot afford such decisions! Who are their advisors? Who in the Town Council has the knowledge and training to decide such matters? If no one then they need to desist, rapidly! It is truly frightening to know that there are no checks and controls at all and that they can do as they wish, when they wish, with our money.[/p][/quote]YES PERSONAL VENDETTAS HARASSMENT STALKING WHISTLEBLOWING FAILED COUNCILLORS BUSINESS CONNECTIONS ALL DENIED BY THE CAVETOWN ELITE badgergate

1:30pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Sutton Lad,
In an earlier post on this thread I included the response to an FOI request which a person in no way associated with Cavetown Council made.
The existence of this FOI confims that not all of these requests come from members of Cavetown.
It also provides an answer to the question you posted.

In response to a Freedom of Information request to a person who is in no way associated with Cavetown Council the volume of FOI requests was answered -
Dear Mr Pullen

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 19 November.

1 The total number of FOI requests received by Keighley Town Council is 81.
2 All the FOI requests have been answered apart from 6 which were refused.
3 The reason they were refused was because they were repeated requests.

Regards

Debbie Spink
Deputy Town Clerk
Keighley Town Council

The full correspondence can be found here- https://www.whatdoth
eyknow.com/request/r
esponses_to_foi_requ
ests#outgoing-319466


Mr Pullen is a regular contributor on these KN threads and I am sure he will confirm he is no way associated with Cavetown and that his FOI was undertaken as an individual to obtain details for his own reasons.

Not only does this show the volume of FOI request but also shows how the statement made by mayor Walker is misleading and suggests a targeted attempt to apportion blame on Cavetown in an attempt to discredit the group and create a negative opinion of us in the eyes of the Public.
That they have not once presented any evidence to either dispute our claims or validate their own, shows their arrogance in demanding that the Public accept what they say is true, despite evidence to the contrary.

They really don''t like Cavetown down at KTC and would like to blame us for everything that goes wrong for this council.
They forget the fact that it is not only Cavetown who object to the conduct of this council.

Several members of Parliament have now Publicly stated their concerns.
District councillors no longer attend KTC meetings.
Serving councillors have made Public comments about their concerns.
Ex Civic Centre Tenants have issues Sworn Statements containing serious accusations regarding the dealings of the council and individual councillors.
The ICO issued warnings and instructions to KTC about their failure to abide by Regulations.
The Grand Provincial Secretary of The Freemasons has confirmed that the conduct of one councillor who is a member of the Society has failed to meet the expectations expected by the Craft.
The deputy mayor Lockley, without warning suddenly retired into obscurity.
And the External Auditors have still not Approved their Accounts.

Obviously in the eyes of certain councillors, all the above are caused by Cavetown.
They fail to see that if they had acted appropriately not only would Cavetown have nothing to disclose to the wider Public, but also there would be no need for Cavetown to of ever come into existence.

Of cause it's all Cavetown's fault.
As KTC lives in a world of make believe which seems to be based on the creations of Hanna Barbera from the cartoons the councillors watched in their youth
Much the same as every villian who's plans are thwarted in Scooby Doo, "they would of got away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids...."
Sutton Lad, In an earlier post on this thread I included the response to an FOI request which a person in no way associated with Cavetown Council made. The existence of this FOI confims that not all of these requests come from members of Cavetown. It also provides an answer to the question you posted. In response to a Freedom of Information request to a person who is in no way associated with Cavetown Council the volume of FOI requests was answered - Dear Mr Pullen Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 19 November. 1 The total number of FOI requests received by Keighley Town Council is 81. 2 All the FOI requests have been answered apart from 6 which were refused. 3 The reason they were refused was because they were repeated requests. Regards Debbie Spink Deputy Town Clerk Keighley Town Council The full correspondence can be found here- https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/r esponses_to_foi_requ ests#outgoing-319466 Mr Pullen is a regular contributor on these KN threads and I am sure he will confirm he is no way associated with Cavetown and that his FOI was undertaken as an individual to obtain details for his own reasons. Not only does this show the volume of FOI request but also shows how the statement made by mayor Walker is misleading and suggests a targeted attempt to apportion blame on Cavetown in an attempt to discredit the group and create a negative opinion of us in the eyes of the Public. That they have not once presented any evidence to either dispute our claims or validate their own, shows their arrogance in demanding that the Public accept what they say is true, despite evidence to the contrary. They really don''t like Cavetown down at KTC and would like to blame us for everything that goes wrong for this council. They forget the fact that it is not only Cavetown who object to the conduct of this council. Several members of Parliament have now Publicly stated their concerns. District councillors no longer attend KTC meetings. Serving councillors have made Public comments about their concerns. Ex Civic Centre Tenants have issues Sworn Statements containing serious accusations regarding the dealings of the council and individual councillors. The ICO issued warnings and instructions to KTC about their failure to abide by Regulations. The Grand Provincial Secretary of The Freemasons has confirmed that the conduct of one councillor who is a member of the Society has failed to meet the expectations expected by the Craft. The deputy mayor Lockley, without warning suddenly retired into obscurity. And the External Auditors have still not Approved their Accounts. Obviously in the eyes of certain councillors, all the above are caused by Cavetown. They fail to see that if they had acted appropriately not only would Cavetown have nothing to disclose to the wider Public, but also there would be no need for Cavetown to of ever come into existence. Of cause it's all Cavetown's fault. As KTC lives in a world of make believe which seems to be based on the creations of Hanna Barbera from the cartoons the councillors watched in their youth Much the same as every villian who's plans are thwarted in Scooby Doo, "they would of got away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids...." Always a 708 Skinhead

1:34pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please?
Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please? Katiery

1:38pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

And to be honest Badgergate, I do not count whistleblowing as a vendetta. If there is a whistle to be blown then it is the fault of those who are not being open and honest about their behaviour, not a vendetta.
And to be honest Badgergate, I do not count whistleblowing as a vendetta. If there is a whistle to be blown then it is the fault of those who are not being open and honest about their behaviour, not a vendetta. Katiery

1:38pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Earlier this year we were contacted by the internal auditors regarding our objections ,there answer was that they were no objections merely observations how foolish they must feel now and should not the council demand their money back .having said that as the council voted to accept the accounts as correct despite the fact that the clerk had forgotten to issue them in other words they said they were correct without seeing them it is possible the council gave a copy of the beano to the internal auditors.
Earlier this year we were contacted by the internal auditors regarding our objections ,there answer was that they were no objections merely observations how foolish they must feel now and should not the council demand their money back .having said that as the council voted to accept the accounts as correct despite the fact that the clerk had forgotten to issue them in other words they said they were correct without seeing them it is possible the council gave a copy of the beano to the internal auditors. Ian-Holt Roberts

1:39pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

The person with a lot of responsibility is the Town Clerk in her role as Responsible Finance Officer (RFO) :
Below is the beginning of the Keighley Town Council's Finance Regulations and this is the link -
http://www.keighley.
gov.uk/about/legal_d
ocs/index.html
If you go to it and scroll down to Financial Regulations, take a look at how many time the RFO crops up and then look at the almighty mess this council is in and make your own minds up. Her salary is over £40K and she has thousands of pounds worth of training, some even in America-

KEIGHLEY TOWN COUNCIL

FINANCIAL REGULATIONS

1. GENERAL

1.1 These financial regulations govern the conduct of the financial transactions of the Council and may only be amended by resolution of the Council.

1.2 The Responsible Financial Officer (RFO), under the policy direction of the Council, shall be responsible for the proper administration of the Council’s affairs.

1.3. The RFO shall be responsible for the production of financial management information as required by standing order or at the request of the Finance committee or Council.
The person with a lot of responsibility is the Town Clerk in her role as Responsible Finance Officer (RFO) : Below is the beginning of the Keighley Town Council's Finance Regulations and this is the link - http://www.keighley. gov.uk/about/legal_d ocs/index.html If you go to it and scroll down to Financial Regulations, take a look at how many time the RFO crops up and then look at the almighty mess this council is in and make your own minds up. Her salary is over £40K and she has thousands of pounds worth of training, some even in America- KEIGHLEY TOWN COUNCIL FINANCIAL REGULATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1 These financial regulations govern the conduct of the financial transactions of the Council and may only be amended by resolution of the Council. 1.2 The Responsible Financial Officer (RFO), under the policy direction of the Council, shall be responsible for the proper administration of the Council’s affairs. 1.3. The RFO shall be responsible for the production of financial management information as required by standing order or at the request of the Finance committee or Council. Elizabeth Mitchell

1:41pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Sutton Lad says...

81 FOI requests?

That works out at over 600 quid per request!

It would seem that the council may be overcharging for this service.
81 FOI requests? That works out at over 600 quid per request! It would seem that the council may be overcharging for this service. Sutton Lad

1:42pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

Little Green Man wrote:
OK I admit it I'm a councillor :)
Then perhaps LGM you could tell us why the civic centre is in so much debt?
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: OK I admit it I'm a councillor :)[/p][/quote]Then perhaps LGM you could tell us why the civic centre is in so much debt? Elizabeth Mitchell

1:57pm Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Katiery wrote:
Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please?
WE ARE ALLOWED LOUD COMMENT'S

I-H R will explain.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please?[/p][/quote]WE ARE ALLOWED LOUD COMMENT'S I-H R will explain. badgergate

2:00pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

Sally Walker, Mayor, this is one of your financial regulatons -
5.2 The RFO shall be responsible for the annual financial statements of the Council after the end of the financial year. A draft will be circulated to all Chairs and the Finance Committee by mid April, 7 clear days will be allowed for the return of comments. The finalized copy will be sent to the Finance Committee for approval at their May meeting and shall then be submitted and reported to the Council at the June meeting for its approval..

The last bit, "submitted and reported to the Council at the June meeting for its approval" is very interesting isn't it. You chaired the meeting but the accounts were not submitted and reported to the Council, were they. Not one councillor was given a copy. They were asked to approve accounts that they had never even seen. Shame on you Cllr Sally Walker and shame on those councillors who voted to approve annual accounts that they had never seen.
Sally Walker, Mayor, this is one of your financial regulatons - 5.2 The RFO shall be responsible for the annual financial statements of the Council after the end of the financial year. A draft will be circulated to all Chairs and the Finance Committee by mid April, 7 clear days will be allowed for the return of comments. The finalized copy will be sent to the Finance Committee for approval at their May meeting and shall then be submitted and reported to the Council at the June meeting for its approval.. The last bit, "submitted and reported to the Council at the June meeting for its approval" is very interesting isn't it. You chaired the meeting but the accounts were not submitted and reported to the Council, were they. Not one councillor was given a copy. They were asked to approve accounts that they had never even seen. Shame on you Cllr Sally Walker and shame on those councillors who voted to approve annual accounts that they had never seen. Elizabeth Mitchell

2:06pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Cavetown has done the following.

Provided a website which anyone who has access to the Internet can look at.

It has created a closed Facebook site which those who wish to join may request to do so and share their views. The reason for it being a closed site is obvious from the diatribe that is aimed at Cavetown when on an open site.

All it's findings are based upon the councils own documentations, FOI request, and media reports, which can be substantiated.

The numerous objections sent to the external auditors are attained from the same source.

I wonder why the critics have not done the same to prove Cavetown wrong. And why is the council still refusing to publicly repudiate what Cavetown have stated? Tick Tock
Cavetown has done the following. Provided a website which anyone who has access to the Internet can look at. It has created a closed Facebook site which those who wish to join may request to do so and share their views. The reason for it being a closed site is obvious from the diatribe that is aimed at Cavetown when on an open site. All it's findings are based upon the councils own documentations, FOI request, and media reports, which can be substantiated. The numerous objections sent to the external auditors are attained from the same source. I wonder why the critics have not done the same to prove Cavetown wrong. And why is the council still refusing to publicly repudiate what Cavetown have stated? Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

2:13pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Katiery,

In response to your question-
"Who are their advisors? Who in the Town Council has the knowledge and training to decide such matters? "

In the case of the Civic Centre the Council engaged the services of a Mr Alan Parry.
I am unsure of his Qualifications.

The Responsible Finance Officer at KTC is Miggy Bailey.
In her Role as Town clerk. She regularly attends Training Events paid for out of council funds and provided by NALC (National Assoc of Local Councils). A body which receives a significant amount of money each year from KTC

Several Committees have varying control and input in matters relating to the Civic Centre.
These include-
The Civic Centre Committee
The Management & Staffing Committee
The Finance & Audit Committee
The Policies & Governance Committee.

Mr Parry was given the title Special Projects Officer.
He was paid a considerable renumeration for his services.

The Pedley Report from 23 Nov 2012 includes as some of the Conclusions the following-

6.3 There is evidence to suggest that AP failed or deliberately misled the finance committee in the assurances given with regards to JW’s salary.

6.5 Throughout this investigation it has become increasingly apparent that a culture of concealment, unaccountability and complacency has been allowed to develop.
Unacceptable management practices and a lack of financial responsibility by both the M&S Committee and the RFO have undoubtedly preceded this investigation.
Report was undertaken after being voted for by the Full Council.
Cllr Pedley Undertook the investigation.

On the 26 Nov 2012 the Report was presented to a Meeting of the Management and Staffing Committee with the RFO present.

After a discussion of the contents of the report, a Resolution was agreed that-
". It was agreed that the investigation report should be submitted to the Clerk and Mayor and if necessary advice taken on its contents. The advice from the YLCA should be forwarded to Councillor Pedley. "

Note the Clerk recommended that the report be submitted to the Clerk!

The Report was marked Confidential and that M&S meeting is the last available mention of it that our Research can find.

The Report was never presented to the Full Council.
A copy of the Report was acquired by a member of Cavetown via a legitimate source.

The report was suppressed by several members of the council to whom the report attributed some of the negative aspects of it's findings.
Despite the Report not being on the Agenda for this meeting and also in breach of at least 2 of the Council's Standing Orders in reading and discussing the Report. The Committee still proceeded to make a resolution on the matter.
Not only did the M&S Committee meeting not have the Authority to sight this Report intended for the Full Council.
It then proceeded to intentionally deny access to this document by the Full Council. The legitimate body who commissioned the Report.

I hope this helps answer your question, although I too will await the response provided by Badgergate which disputes my version and provides evidence negating my own.

Tick Tock
Katiery, In response to your question- "Who are their advisors? Who in the Town Council has the knowledge and training to decide such matters? " In the case of the Civic Centre the Council engaged the services of a Mr Alan Parry. I am unsure of his Qualifications. The Responsible Finance Officer at KTC is Miggy Bailey. In her Role as Town clerk. She regularly attends Training Events paid for out of council funds and provided by NALC (National Assoc of Local Councils). A body which receives a significant amount of money each year from KTC Several Committees have varying control and input in matters relating to the Civic Centre. These include- The Civic Centre Committee The Management & Staffing Committee The Finance & Audit Committee The Policies & Governance Committee. Mr Parry was given the title Special Projects Officer. He was paid a considerable renumeration for his services. The Pedley Report from 23 Nov 2012 includes as some of the Conclusions the following- 6.3 There is evidence to suggest that AP failed or deliberately misled the finance committee in the assurances given with regards to JW’s salary. 6.5 Throughout this investigation it has become increasingly apparent that a culture of concealment, unaccountability and complacency has been allowed to develop. Unacceptable management practices and a lack of financial responsibility by both the M&S Committee and the RFO have undoubtedly preceded this investigation. Report was undertaken after being voted for by the Full Council. Cllr Pedley Undertook the investigation. On the 26 Nov 2012 the Report was presented to a Meeting of the Management and Staffing Committee with the RFO present. After a discussion of the contents of the report, a Resolution was agreed that- ". It was agreed that the investigation report should be submitted to the Clerk and Mayor and if necessary advice taken on its contents. The advice from the YLCA should be forwarded to Councillor Pedley. " Note the Clerk recommended that the report be submitted to the Clerk! The Report was marked Confidential and that M&S meeting is the last available mention of it that our Research can find. The Report was never presented to the Full Council. A copy of the Report was acquired by a member of Cavetown via a legitimate source. The report was suppressed by several members of the council to whom the report attributed some of the negative aspects of it's findings. Despite the Report not being on the Agenda for this meeting and also in breach of at least 2 of the Council's Standing Orders in reading and discussing the Report. The Committee still proceeded to make a resolution on the matter. Not only did the M&S Committee meeting not have the Authority to sight this Report intended for the Full Council. It then proceeded to intentionally deny access to this document by the Full Council. The legitimate body who commissioned the Report. I hope this helps answer your question, although I too will await the response provided by Badgergate which disputes my version and provides evidence negating my own. Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead

2:20pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

badgergate wrote:
Katiery wrote:
Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please?
WE ARE ALLOWED LOUD COMMENT'S

I-H R will explain.
KATIERY i would apologies for this poor excuse for a human being showing his true colours he is referring to me.at night having to use capitals because of my poor eye sight and the reflections as a result of the lights he is not worth the time of day .
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please?[/p][/quote]WE ARE ALLOWED LOUD COMMENT'S I-H R will explain.[/p][/quote]KATIERY i would apologies for this poor excuse for a human being showing his true colours he is referring to me.at night having to use capitals because of my poor eye sight and the reflections as a result of the lights he is not worth the time of day . Ian-Holt Roberts

2:23pm Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
badgergate wrote:
Katiery wrote:
Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please?
WE ARE ALLOWED LOUD COMMENT'S

I-H R will explain.
KATIERY i would apologies for this poor excuse for a human being showing his true colours he is referring to me.at night having to use capitals because of my poor eye sight and the reflections as a result of the lights he is not worth the time of day .
THANKS
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please?[/p][/quote]WE ARE ALLOWED LOUD COMMENT'S I-H R will explain.[/p][/quote]KATIERY i would apologies for this poor excuse for a human being showing his true colours he is referring to me.at night having to use capitals because of my poor eye sight and the reflections as a result of the lights he is not worth the time of day .[/p][/quote]THANKS badgergate

2:32pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Remember this?

Keighley News 17th June 2010. Cost of civic centre plans kept under wraps
“Using the old police garage to store town council property such as its van, Christmas decorations, allotments equipment and public events materials.”

The why are we paying this?

Payments in Excess of £500. April 2013.
Russell Street premises storage rent (May-June-July 2013) £1,962.50

Take a look at the councils, Asset Register, and see how much of the above is stored at Russell Street. So what is stored in the old police garage, and how can the old police garage be used for storage if it is housing the black maria and is part of the police museum, which was part of the 2010 business plan.

Proposed Use Within the Building Are As Follows
d) Victorian Police Museum.

Anyone from KTC care to explain?
Remember this? Keighley News 17th June 2010. Cost of civic centre plans kept under wraps “Using the old police garage to store town council property such as its van, Christmas decorations, allotments equipment and public events materials.” The why are we paying this? Payments in Excess of £500. April 2013. Russell Street premises storage rent (May-June-July 2013) £1,962.50 Take a look at the councils, Asset Register, and see how much of the above is stored at Russell Street. So what is stored in the old police garage, and how can the old police garage be used for storage if it is housing the black maria and is part of the police museum, which was part of the 2010 business plan. Proposed Use Within the Building Are As Follows d) Victorian Police Museum. Anyone from KTC care to explain? Graham Forsyth

2:41pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Gobbag Vooar says...

badgergate wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
badgergate wrote:
Katiery wrote:
Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please?
WE ARE ALLOWED LOUD COMMENT'S

I-H R will explain.
KATIERY i would apologies for this poor excuse for a human being showing his true colours he is referring to me.at night having to use capitals because of my poor eye sight and the reflections as a result of the lights he is not worth the time of day .
THANKS
This says it all,
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please?[/p][/quote]WE ARE ALLOWED LOUD COMMENT'S I-H R will explain.[/p][/quote]KATIERY i would apologies for this poor excuse for a human being showing his true colours he is referring to me.at night having to use capitals because of my poor eye sight and the reflections as a result of the lights he is not worth the time of day .[/p][/quote]THANKS[/p][/quote]This says it all, Gobbag Vooar

2:56pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Katiery,
Just out of interest, what are your objections to the term Cavetown?
After researching the name some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the name originated in the mid 1800's.
It came about due to the relationship with the town of William Cavendish. Cavendish was the 7th Duke of Devonshire and elements of the Cavendish Coat of Arms are incorporated into the Keighley Coat of Arms, such was his relationship with the town. Several major aspects of the town also bear his name.
So closely was he tied to the town that he was known as Lord Cavendish of Keighley.
It is my belief that Keighley may of sometimes been referred to as Lord Cavendish's Town and that this evolved and became known as Cavetown through the years.
Part of the motto of the Cavendish Family is-
Cavendo tutus, Safe through caution.
Which seems to me to be an apt name for a group of Parishioners who in seeking Honesty and Accountability from their Council also attempt to meticulously research as much detail as possible on the subject in doing so.

I do understand that many people believe the name to be a derogatory nickname for Keighley, but I myself was unable to find any evidence of this being the case.
I ask purely because the origins of the nickname have interested me since long before the group Cavetown Council came into existence and the alternatives meanings of the name seemed too obscure in my opinion to have stuck to the town.
There are no Cave networks of significance in the area,
An extension of K Town? Perhaps, but why not Kavetown if this is the case?
Because we are all neandrathal (or troglodytes according to one councillor to me)? I am not aware of any fossilised remains of significance being found in the area suggesting a coexistence of our species in prehistory.

I only ask as you earlier stated that you detest the name and i was interested in why this is the case.

While I do believe that my theory seems to be the most valid. I am interested in any information which helps shed light on it's use. After all, from the motto of The Lord Cavendish of Keighley-
Cavendo tutus, Safe through caution.
Katiery, Just out of interest, what are your objections to the term Cavetown? After researching the name some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the name originated in the mid 1800's. It came about due to the relationship with the town of William Cavendish. Cavendish was the 7th Duke of Devonshire and elements of the Cavendish Coat of Arms are incorporated into the Keighley Coat of Arms, such was his relationship with the town. Several major aspects of the town also bear his name. So closely was he tied to the town that he was known as Lord Cavendish of Keighley. It is my belief that Keighley may of sometimes been referred to as Lord Cavendish's Town and that this evolved and became known as Cavetown through the years. Part of the motto of the Cavendish Family is- Cavendo tutus, Safe through caution. Which seems to me to be an apt name for a group of Parishioners who in seeking Honesty and Accountability from their Council also attempt to meticulously research as much detail as possible on the subject in doing so. I do understand that many people believe the name to be a derogatory nickname for Keighley, but I myself was unable to find any evidence of this being the case. I ask purely because the origins of the nickname have interested me since long before the group Cavetown Council came into existence and the alternatives meanings of the name seemed too obscure in my opinion to have stuck to the town. There are no Cave networks of significance in the area, An extension of K Town? Perhaps, but why not Kavetown if this is the case? Because we are all neandrathal (or troglodytes according to one councillor to me)? I am not aware of any fossilised remains of significance being found in the area suggesting a coexistence of our species in prehistory. I only ask as you earlier stated that you detest the name and i was interested in why this is the case. While I do believe that my theory seems to be the most valid. I am interested in any information which helps shed light on it's use. After all, from the motto of The Lord Cavendish of Keighley- Cavendo tutus, Safe through caution. Always a 708 Skinhead

3:16pm Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Gobbag Vooar wrote:
badgergate wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
badgergate wrote:
Katiery wrote:
Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please?
WE ARE ALLOWED LOUD COMMENT'S

I-H R will explain.
KATIERY i would apologies for this poor excuse for a human being showing his true colours he is referring to me.at night having to use capitals because of my poor eye sight and the reflections as a result of the lights he is not worth the time of day .
THANKS
This says it all,
THANKS
[quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Thank you for that loud comment, Badgergate. Now, as you are obviously 'in the know' could you please answer my very legitimate questions please?[/p][/quote]WE ARE ALLOWED LOUD COMMENT'S I-H R will explain.[/p][/quote]KATIERY i would apologies for this poor excuse for a human being showing his true colours he is referring to me.at night having to use capitals because of my poor eye sight and the reflections as a result of the lights he is not worth the time of day .[/p][/quote]THANKS[/p][/quote]This says it all,[/p][/quote]THANKS badgergate

3:39pm Fri 20 Dec 13

jimmy k says...

Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
OK I admit it I'm a councillor :)
Then perhaps LGM you could tell us why the civic centre is in so much debt?
thats the trouble with people and bandwagons no sense of humour.
[quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: OK I admit it I'm a councillor :)[/p][/quote]Then perhaps LGM you could tell us why the civic centre is in so much debt?[/p][/quote]thats the trouble with people and bandwagons no sense of humour. jimmy k

4:04pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
Remember this?

Keighley News 17th June 2010. Cost of civic centre plans kept under wraps
“Using the old police garage to store town council property such as its van, Christmas decorations, allotments equipment and public events materials.”

The why are we paying this?

Payments in Excess of £500. April 2013.
Russell Street premises storage rent (May-June-July 2013) £1,962.50

Take a look at the councils, Asset Register, and see how much of the above is stored at Russell Street. So what is stored in the old police garage, and how can the old police garage be used for storage if it is housing the black maria and is part of the police museum, which was part of the 2010 business plan.

Proposed Use Within the Building Are As Follows
d) Victorian Police Museum.

Anyone from KTC care to explain?
And do we also remember this?

K.N. Thursday 17th June 2010.Cost of civic centre plans kept under wraps
(Cllr Philip)
“The police station would be bought with a loan and both running costs and repayments would be covered from rental income and savings on the council’s own accommodation costs.”

And on the 8 June 2012 the town clerk stated in an FOI request:
“The Town Hall is owned by Bradford Council who deal with the rates and overheads.”

So what accommodation costs were being saved?

And what accommodations cost are we paying now

In the 2013/14 KTC budget it give the civic centre total expenditure at £217,034.

Anyone at KTC care to explain?
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: Remember this? Keighley News 17th June 2010. Cost of civic centre plans kept under wraps “Using the old police garage to store town council property such as its van, Christmas decorations, allotments equipment and public events materials.” The why are we paying this? Payments in Excess of £500. April 2013. Russell Street premises storage rent (May-June-July 2013) £1,962.50 Take a look at the councils, Asset Register, and see how much of the above is stored at Russell Street. So what is stored in the old police garage, and how can the old police garage be used for storage if it is housing the black maria and is part of the police museum, which was part of the 2010 business plan. Proposed Use Within the Building Are As Follows d) Victorian Police Museum. Anyone from KTC care to explain?[/p][/quote]And do we also remember this? K.N. Thursday 17th June 2010.Cost of civic centre plans kept under wraps (Cllr Philip) “The police station would be bought with a loan and both running costs and repayments would be covered from rental income and savings on the council’s own accommodation costs.” And on the 8 June 2012 the town clerk stated in an FOI request: “The Town Hall is owned by Bradford Council who deal with the rates and overheads.” So what accommodation costs were being saved? And what accommodations cost are we paying now In the 2013/14 KTC budget it give the civic centre total expenditure at £217,034. Anyone at KTC care to explain? Graham Forsyth

4:17pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Jimmy K,
Humour is a very personal emotion.
If someone does not seem to be laughing with you, it may well be they are laughing at you.
You have your fun, but don't think that because you fail to comprehend the sense of humour in others, that they do not find you a source of amusement.

Meanwhile there are more serious matters to be discussed which will continue either with or without the demands for attention from those with nothing to offer.
LGM is well aware that he has a short attention span and has difficulty in concentrating which is further complicated by his inability to take anything seriously.
On the 9th Dec 2013 Little Green Man commented-
Note the smiley face? I already explained that you shouldn't take me seriously but you only listen to what you want to hear

That he has acknowledged these issues is a great achievement. for him, but knowing that he is being laughed at may well set him back.

His intermittent input is, as he himself requested, never taken seriously.
It is not his words but his presence which has become the joke and in this he accomplishes what he intended, to make people laugh at him.

In this way he differs from KTC councillors.
As each day passes, their more determined demands to be taken seriously are met with yet more people realising what a joke they are.
As with all jokes, they stop being funny after a while.
Hopefully the legislation is in place in time to prevent KTC extorting whatever they want out of the public for next year.
Then we'll see who's smiling.
Decisions will have to be made in the real world and the clowns will be stunned into Lockley like Frowns.
Jimmy K, Humour is a very personal emotion. If someone does not seem to be laughing with you, it may well be they are laughing at you. You have your fun, but don't think that because you fail to comprehend the sense of humour in others, that they do not find you a source of amusement. Meanwhile there are more serious matters to be discussed which will continue either with or without the demands for attention from those with nothing to offer. LGM is well aware that he has a short attention span and has difficulty in concentrating which is further complicated by his inability to take anything seriously. On the 9th Dec 2013 Little Green Man commented- Note the smiley face? I already explained that you shouldn't take me seriously but you only listen to what you want to hear That he has acknowledged these issues is a great achievement. for him, but knowing that he is being laughed at may well set him back. His intermittent input is, as he himself requested, never taken seriously. It is not his words but his presence which has become the joke and in this he accomplishes what he intended, to make people laugh at him. In this way he differs from KTC councillors. As each day passes, their more determined demands to be taken seriously are met with yet more people realising what a joke they are. As with all jokes, they stop being funny after a while. Hopefully the legislation is in place in time to prevent KTC extorting whatever they want out of the public for next year. Then we'll see who's smiling. Decisions will have to be made in the real world and the clowns will be stunned into Lockley like Frowns. Always a 708 Skinhead

4:28pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Sutton Lad,
In an earlier post on this thread I included the response to an FOI request which a person in no way associated with Cavetown Council made.
The existence of this FOI confims that not all of these requests come from members of Cavetown.
It also provides an answer to the question you posted.

In response to a Freedom of Information request to a person who is in no way associated with Cavetown Council the volume of FOI requests was answered -
Dear Mr Pullen

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 19 November.

1 The total number of FOI requests received by Keighley Town Council is 81.
2 All the FOI requests have been answered apart from 6 which were refused.
3 The reason they were refused was because they were repeated requests.

Regards

Debbie Spink
Deputy Town Clerk
Keighley Town Council

The full correspondence can be found here- https://www.whatdoth

eyknow.com/request/r

esponses_to_foi_requ

ests#outgoing-319466



Mr Pullen is a regular contributor on these KN threads and I am sure he will confirm he is no way associated with Cavetown and that his FOI was undertaken as an individual to obtain details for his own reasons.

Not only does this show the volume of FOI request but also shows how the statement made by mayor Walker is misleading and suggests a targeted attempt to apportion blame on Cavetown in an attempt to discredit the group and create a negative opinion of us in the eyes of the Public.
That they have not once presented any evidence to either dispute our claims or validate their own, shows their arrogance in demanding that the Public accept what they say is true, despite evidence to the contrary.

They really don''t like Cavetown down at KTC and would like to blame us for everything that goes wrong for this council.
They forget the fact that it is not only Cavetown who object to the conduct of this council.

Several members of Parliament have now Publicly stated their concerns.
District councillors no longer attend KTC meetings.
Serving councillors have made Public comments about their concerns.
Ex Civic Centre Tenants have issues Sworn Statements containing serious accusations regarding the dealings of the council and individual councillors.
The ICO issued warnings and instructions to KTC about their failure to abide by Regulations.
The Grand Provincial Secretary of The Freemasons has confirmed that the conduct of one councillor who is a member of the Society has failed to meet the expectations expected by the Craft.
The deputy mayor Lockley, without warning suddenly retired into obscurity.
And the External Auditors have still not Approved their Accounts.

Obviously in the eyes of certain councillors, all the above are caused by Cavetown.
They fail to see that if they had acted appropriately not only would Cavetown have nothing to disclose to the wider Public, but also there would be no need for Cavetown to of ever come into existence.

Of cause it's all Cavetown's fault.
As KTC lives in a world of make believe which seems to be based on the creations of Hanna Barbera from the cartoons the councillors watched in their youth
Much the same as every villian who's plans are thwarted in Scooby Doo, "they would of got away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids...."
Happy to confirm that the FoI request was sent as an individual member of public and I have no allegiance with KTC or Cavetown Council.

It was pointed out later though that I hadn't requested information regarding the 2013-2014 number of requests to date - this was due to it not being a complete year.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Sutton Lad, In an earlier post on this thread I included the response to an FOI request which a person in no way associated with Cavetown Council made. The existence of this FOI confims that not all of these requests come from members of Cavetown. It also provides an answer to the question you posted. In response to a Freedom of Information request to a person who is in no way associated with Cavetown Council the volume of FOI requests was answered - Dear Mr Pullen Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 19 November. 1 The total number of FOI requests received by Keighley Town Council is 81. 2 All the FOI requests have been answered apart from 6 which were refused. 3 The reason they were refused was because they were repeated requests. Regards Debbie Spink Deputy Town Clerk Keighley Town Council The full correspondence can be found here- https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/r esponses_to_foi_requ ests#outgoing-319466 Mr Pullen is a regular contributor on these KN threads and I am sure he will confirm he is no way associated with Cavetown and that his FOI was undertaken as an individual to obtain details for his own reasons. Not only does this show the volume of FOI request but also shows how the statement made by mayor Walker is misleading and suggests a targeted attempt to apportion blame on Cavetown in an attempt to discredit the group and create a negative opinion of us in the eyes of the Public. That they have not once presented any evidence to either dispute our claims or validate their own, shows their arrogance in demanding that the Public accept what they say is true, despite evidence to the contrary. They really don''t like Cavetown down at KTC and would like to blame us for everything that goes wrong for this council. They forget the fact that it is not only Cavetown who object to the conduct of this council. Several members of Parliament have now Publicly stated their concerns. District councillors no longer attend KTC meetings. Serving councillors have made Public comments about their concerns. Ex Civic Centre Tenants have issues Sworn Statements containing serious accusations regarding the dealings of the council and individual councillors. The ICO issued warnings and instructions to KTC about their failure to abide by Regulations. The Grand Provincial Secretary of The Freemasons has confirmed that the conduct of one councillor who is a member of the Society has failed to meet the expectations expected by the Craft. The deputy mayor Lockley, without warning suddenly retired into obscurity. And the External Auditors have still not Approved their Accounts. Obviously in the eyes of certain councillors, all the above are caused by Cavetown. They fail to see that if they had acted appropriately not only would Cavetown have nothing to disclose to the wider Public, but also there would be no need for Cavetown to of ever come into existence. Of cause it's all Cavetown's fault. As KTC lives in a world of make believe which seems to be based on the creations of Hanna Barbera from the cartoons the councillors watched in their youth Much the same as every villian who's plans are thwarted in Scooby Doo, "they would of got away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids...."[/p][/quote]Happy to confirm that the FoI request was sent as an individual member of public and I have no allegiance with KTC or Cavetown Council. It was pointed out later though that I hadn't requested information regarding the 2013-2014 number of requests to date - this was due to it not being a complete year. MarkPullen

4:39pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Just a small point of order Graham Forsyth - you state that Cavetown "has created a closed Facebook site which those who wish to join may request to do so and share their views. The reason for it being a closed site is obvious from the diatribe that is aimed at Cavetown when on an open site."

I have offered support for the Cavetown campaign on these threads and yet my requests to join are continually rejected.

Who feels that this member of the public is not entitled to join?
What criteria is being used?
Just a small point of order Graham Forsyth - you state that Cavetown "has created a closed Facebook site which those who wish to join may request to do so and share their views. The reason for it being a closed site is obvious from the diatribe that is aimed at Cavetown when on an open site." I have offered support for the Cavetown campaign on these threads and yet my requests to join are continually rejected. Who feels that this member of the public is not entitled to join? What criteria is being used? MarkPullen

4:55pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

"jimmy k says...thats the trouble with people and bandwagons no sense of humour."

Do you really think that this is a subject that is humourous? Do you think that public expenditure, just increasing the amount that every family HAS to pay should be without question? Many people are on the boarderline already and do not have the money to give away without it impacting on them. We are not just here to fund the Town Council's whims and fancies as and when they decide to buy a white elephant and lie to us about how it will be maintained in the future. It is a useless space so far and we deserve to have our concerns taken seriously and questions answered, not the childish little comments that some seem to think are hilarious.

I was never much interested in what the Town Council were up to. But I sure as hell am now and have every intention of finding out just exactly where MY money is being spent and by whom.

You may laugh all you want to Jimmy K, I don't find anything funny so far!
"jimmy k says...thats the trouble with people and bandwagons no sense of humour." Do you really think that this is a subject that is humourous? Do you think that public expenditure, just increasing the amount that every family HAS to pay should be without question? Many people are on the boarderline already and do not have the money to give away without it impacting on them. We are not just here to fund the Town Council's whims and fancies as and when they decide to buy a white elephant and lie to us about how it will be maintained in the future. It is a useless space so far and we deserve to have our concerns taken seriously and questions answered, not the childish little comments that some seem to think are hilarious. I was never much interested in what the Town Council were up to. But I sure as hell am now and have every intention of finding out just exactly where MY money is being spent and by whom. You may laugh all you want to Jimmy K, I don't find anything funny so far! Katiery

5:13pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Katiery wrote:
"jimmy k says...thats the trouble with people and bandwagons no sense of humour."

Do you really think that this is a subject that is humourous? Do you think that public expenditure, just increasing the amount that every family HAS to pay should be without question? Many people are on the boarderline already and do not have the money to give away without it impacting on them. We are not just here to fund the Town Council's whims and fancies as and when they decide to buy a white elephant and lie to us about how it will be maintained in the future. It is a useless space so far and we deserve to have our concerns taken seriously and questions answered, not the childish little comments that some seem to think are hilarious.

I was never much interested in what the Town Council were up to. But I sure as hell am now and have every intention of finding out just exactly where MY money is being spent and by whom.

You may laugh all you want to Jimmy K, I don't find anything funny so far!
I think you'll find that the humour, both pointed and frivolous, has been doled out at times by all and every side of the discussion.

You are totally correct that the issues alleged relating to KTC are serious and it themselves not a laughing matter but the responses on these pages have, at times, been farcical and comedic to say the least.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: "jimmy k says...thats the trouble with people and bandwagons no sense of humour." Do you really think that this is a subject that is humourous? Do you think that public expenditure, just increasing the amount that every family HAS to pay should be without question? Many people are on the boarderline already and do not have the money to give away without it impacting on them. We are not just here to fund the Town Council's whims and fancies as and when they decide to buy a white elephant and lie to us about how it will be maintained in the future. It is a useless space so far and we deserve to have our concerns taken seriously and questions answered, not the childish little comments that some seem to think are hilarious. I was never much interested in what the Town Council were up to. But I sure as hell am now and have every intention of finding out just exactly where MY money is being spent and by whom. You may laugh all you want to Jimmy K, I don't find anything funny so far![/p][/quote]I think you'll find that the humour, both pointed and frivolous, has been doled out at times by all and every side of the discussion. You are totally correct that the issues alleged relating to KTC are serious and it themselves not a laughing matter but the responses on these pages have, at times, been farcical and comedic to say the least. MarkPullen

5:20pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Katiery wrote:
"jimmy k says...thats the trouble with people and bandwagons no sense of humour."

Do you really think that this is a subject that is humourous? Do you think that public expenditure, just increasing the amount that every family HAS to pay should be without question? Many people are on the boarderline already and do not have the money to give away without it impacting on them. We are not just here to fund the Town Council's whims and fancies as and when they decide to buy a white elephant and lie to us about how it will be maintained in the future. It is a useless space so far and we deserve to have our concerns taken seriously and questions answered, not the childish little comments that some seem to think are hilarious.

I was never much interested in what the Town Council were up to. But I sure as hell am now and have every intention of finding out just exactly where MY money is being spent and by whom.

You may laugh all you want to Jimmy K, I don't find anything funny so far!
KATIERY I WOULD CONCUR WITH WHAT YOU HAVE SAID PEOPLE IN OUR TOWN ARE HURTING AND THERE IS NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT THAT .ON ALL OF THE POSTS ,THREADS ,WHATEVER THEY ARE CALLED THE SAME SEMI HUMANS COME ON AND ATTEMPT TO CAUSE A DISTRACTION AND HOPE IT ACTS AS A DETERRENT TO PEOPLE AIRING THEIR VIEWS THEY ARE BEST LEFT ALONE .
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: "jimmy k says...thats the trouble with people and bandwagons no sense of humour." Do you really think that this is a subject that is humourous? Do you think that public expenditure, just increasing the amount that every family HAS to pay should be without question? Many people are on the boarderline already and do not have the money to give away without it impacting on them. We are not just here to fund the Town Council's whims and fancies as and when they decide to buy a white elephant and lie to us about how it will be maintained in the future. It is a useless space so far and we deserve to have our concerns taken seriously and questions answered, not the childish little comments that some seem to think are hilarious. I was never much interested in what the Town Council were up to. But I sure as hell am now and have every intention of finding out just exactly where MY money is being spent and by whom. You may laugh all you want to Jimmy K, I don't find anything funny so far![/p][/quote]KATIERY I WOULD CONCUR WITH WHAT YOU HAVE SAID PEOPLE IN OUR TOWN ARE HURTING AND THERE IS NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT THAT .ON ALL OF THE POSTS ,THREADS ,WHATEVER THEY ARE CALLED THE SAME SEMI HUMANS COME ON AND ATTEMPT TO CAUSE A DISTRACTION AND HOPE IT ACTS AS A DETERRENT TO PEOPLE AIRING THEIR VIEWS THEY ARE BEST LEFT ALONE . Ian-Holt Roberts

5:22pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Thank you Mr Pullen, for your concise and accurate response.

I do have one question regarding one response you received from the deputy clerk.-
Dear Mr Pullen

Standing Order 10C does not relate to members of the public but to Councillors. Members of the public are governed by Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960.

The Chairman made the decision to contact the police.

Regards

Debbie Spink
Deputy Town Clerk

Are you aware of exactly which part of the Legislation Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960.quoted by Debbie Spink in her response relates to your specific question-

Dear Debbie Spink,

Thank you for the reply.

Could you clarify if the Chairman has specific guidance to support
his/her decision relating to SO 10c?

"If a resolution made in accordance with standing order 10 (b)
above, is disobeyed, the Chairman may take such further steps as
may reasonably be necessary to enforce it and / or he may adjourn
the meeting."

I am specifically relating the question to who requested that the
police were contacted during the recent incident? Was this the
chairman or did another members of staff/chamber undertake the call
using their own initiative?

Yours sincerely,

Mark Pullen

The answer seems somewhat vague and I cannot seem to identify exactly which part of the quoted Legislation anyone can infer there is a right for the council to call the Police particularly when no disturbance or crime was taking place?

The answer you received is somewhat confusing as it was in fact Standing Orders which were quoted by the council as being the reason for the prevention of filming.

In the Approved Minutes of that Meeting on the 4th July 2013 we can read-
Members in the Public Gallery proceeded to film. It was, therefore,

Proposed by Councillor Morris,
Seconded by Councillor A Wright, and

RESOLVED
That the meeting be adjourned between 6.32pm and 6.45pm due to disorderly conduct from the public gallery, in line with Standing Order 10.

The Mayor re-iterated her request to members of the public not to film or record the proceedings. They continued to film. It was , therefore,

Proposed by Councillor Lockley,
Seconded by Councillor Morris, and

RESOLVED
That the meeting be adjourned between 6.47pm and 7.15pm due to disorderly conduct from the public gallery, in line with Standing Order 10.

The meeting commenced at 7.20 p.m. following the removal of members of the public who had ignored the Mayor’s request.


The Minutes are supposed to be a true and accurate recording of events and if this is the case why is it that there is no mention of the Legislation Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960 recorded in them?

It seems to me that you have not received a comprehensive answer to your question and this answer not only references Legislation which does not appear to account for the actions of the council but also is a Freedom of Information Request which is in conflict with the True and Accurate Record of what took place as recorded in the Minutes of that Meeting.

Or are we to read, based on the FOI response you have received, that the mayor invoked standing Order 10 as outlined in the minutes due to disorderly conduct by a councillor or councillors?
If this is the case then it surely it must of been the councillors who proposed and seconded the suspension of the meeting who were in fact causing a disturbance?

If so, why then were members of the Public, the majority who were not even filming ejected so swiftly?

Surely Mr Pullen, this FOI cannot satisfy your reasons for requesting this information?

It certainly wouldn't satisfy me.

Simon Mitchell
Thank you Mr Pullen, for your concise and accurate response. I do have one question regarding one response you received from the deputy clerk.- Dear Mr Pullen Standing Order 10C does not relate to members of the public but to Councillors. Members of the public are governed by Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960. The Chairman made the decision to contact the police. Regards Debbie Spink Deputy Town Clerk Are you aware of exactly which part of the Legislation Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960.quoted by Debbie Spink in her response relates to your specific question- Dear Debbie Spink, Thank you for the reply. Could you clarify if the Chairman has specific guidance to support his/her decision relating to SO 10c? "If a resolution made in accordance with standing order 10 (b) above, is disobeyed, the Chairman may take such further steps as may reasonably be necessary to enforce it and / or he may adjourn the meeting." I am specifically relating the question to who requested that the police were contacted during the recent incident? Was this the chairman or did another members of staff/chamber undertake the call using their own initiative? Yours sincerely, Mark Pullen The answer seems somewhat vague and I cannot seem to identify exactly which part of the quoted Legislation anyone can infer there is a right for the council to call the Police particularly when no disturbance or crime was taking place? The answer you received is somewhat confusing as it was in fact Standing Orders which were quoted by the council as being the reason for the prevention of filming. In the Approved Minutes of that Meeting on the 4th July 2013 we can read- Members in the Public Gallery proceeded to film. It was, therefore, Proposed by Councillor Morris, Seconded by Councillor A Wright, and RESOLVED That the meeting be adjourned between 6.32pm and 6.45pm due to disorderly conduct from the public gallery, in line with Standing Order 10. The Mayor re-iterated her request to members of the public not to film or record the proceedings. They continued to film. It was , therefore, Proposed by Councillor Lockley, Seconded by Councillor Morris, and RESOLVED That the meeting be adjourned between 6.47pm and 7.15pm due to disorderly conduct from the public gallery, in line with Standing Order 10. The meeting commenced at 7.20 p.m. following the removal of members of the public who had ignored the Mayor’s request. The Minutes are supposed to be a true and accurate recording of events and if this is the case why is it that there is no mention of the Legislation Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960 recorded in them? It seems to me that you have not received a comprehensive answer to your question and this answer not only references Legislation which does not appear to account for the actions of the council but also is a Freedom of Information Request which is in conflict with the True and Accurate Record of what took place as recorded in the Minutes of that Meeting. Or are we to read, based on the FOI response you have received, that the mayor invoked standing Order 10 as outlined in the minutes due to disorderly conduct by a councillor or councillors? If this is the case then it surely it must of been the councillors who proposed and seconded the suspension of the meeting who were in fact causing a disturbance? If so, why then were members of the Public, the majority who were not even filming ejected so swiftly? Surely Mr Pullen, this FOI cannot satisfy your reasons for requesting this information? It certainly wouldn't satisfy me. Simon Mitchell Always a 708 Skinhead

5:24pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

MarkPullen, farcical is not funny, nor are the sarcastic and stupid remarks being made on here by people who should be answering the questions rather than making digs at those who have legitimate concerns. Can't laugh at any of it, sorry.

Always a 708 Skinhead, The name Cavetown gives no indication that it has anything to do with the Cavendish family and their relationship to Keighley, it just give the impression that we are all backward, cave dwellers and thick as planks. Enough people deride Keighley already, so yes, I detest the name. I am proud of where I live, even if I am not so proud of the way the town is currently being run.
MarkPullen, farcical is not funny, nor are the sarcastic and stupid remarks being made on here by people who should be answering the questions rather than making digs at those who have legitimate concerns. Can't laugh at any of it, sorry. Always a 708 Skinhead, The name Cavetown gives no indication that it has anything to do with the Cavendish family and their relationship to Keighley, it just give the impression that we are all backward, cave dwellers and thick as planks. Enough people deride Keighley already, so yes, I detest the name. I am proud of where I live, even if I am not so proud of the way the town is currently being run. Katiery

5:24pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Thank you Mr Pullen, for your concise and accurate response.

I do have one question regarding one response you received from the deputy clerk.-
Dear Mr Pullen

Standing Order 10C does not relate to members of the public but to Councillors. Members of the public are governed by Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960.

The Chairman made the decision to contact the police.

Regards

Debbie Spink
Deputy Town Clerk

Are you aware of exactly which part of the Legislation Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960.quoted by Debbie Spink in her response relates to your specific question-

Dear Debbie Spink,

Thank you for the reply.

Could you clarify if the Chairman has specific guidance to support
his/her decision relating to SO 10c?

"If a resolution made in accordance with standing order 10 (b)
above, is disobeyed, the Chairman may take such further steps as
may reasonably be necessary to enforce it and / or he may adjourn
the meeting."

I am specifically relating the question to who requested that the
police were contacted during the recent incident? Was this the
chairman or did another members of staff/chamber undertake the call
using their own initiative?

Yours sincerely,

Mark Pullen

The answer seems somewhat vague and I cannot seem to identify exactly which part of the quoted Legislation anyone can infer there is a right for the council to call the Police particularly when no disturbance or crime was taking place?

The answer you received is somewhat confusing as it was in fact Standing Orders which were quoted by the council as being the reason for the prevention of filming.

In the Approved Minutes of that Meeting on the 4th July 2013 we can read-
Members in the Public Gallery proceeded to film. It was, therefore,

Proposed by Councillor Morris,
Seconded by Councillor A Wright, and

RESOLVED
That the meeting be adjourned between 6.32pm and 6.45pm due to disorderly conduct from the public gallery, in line with Standing Order 10.

The Mayor re-iterated her request to members of the public not to film or record the proceedings. They continued to film. It was , therefore,

Proposed by Councillor Lockley,
Seconded by Councillor Morris, and

RESOLVED
That the meeting be adjourned between 6.47pm and 7.15pm due to disorderly conduct from the public gallery, in line with Standing Order 10.

The meeting commenced at 7.20 p.m. following the removal of members of the public who had ignored the Mayor’s request.


The Minutes are supposed to be a true and accurate recording of events and if this is the case why is it that there is no mention of the Legislation Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960 recorded in them?

It seems to me that you have not received a comprehensive answer to your question and this answer not only references Legislation which does not appear to account for the actions of the council but also is a Freedom of Information Request which is in conflict with the True and Accurate Record of what took place as recorded in the Minutes of that Meeting.

Or are we to read, based on the FOI response you have received, that the mayor invoked standing Order 10 as outlined in the minutes due to disorderly conduct by a councillor or councillors?
If this is the case then it surely it must of been the councillors who proposed and seconded the suspension of the meeting who were in fact causing a disturbance?

If so, why then were members of the Public, the majority who were not even filming ejected so swiftly?

Surely Mr Pullen, this FOI cannot satisfy your reasons for requesting this information?

It certainly wouldn't satisfy me.

Simon Mitchell
Obviously Simon you are free to request further information from KTC.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Thank you Mr Pullen, for your concise and accurate response. I do have one question regarding one response you received from the deputy clerk.- Dear Mr Pullen Standing Order 10C does not relate to members of the public but to Councillors. Members of the public are governed by Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960. The Chairman made the decision to contact the police. Regards Debbie Spink Deputy Town Clerk Are you aware of exactly which part of the Legislation Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960.quoted by Debbie Spink in her response relates to your specific question- Dear Debbie Spink, Thank you for the reply. Could you clarify if the Chairman has specific guidance to support his/her decision relating to SO 10c? "If a resolution made in accordance with standing order 10 (b) above, is disobeyed, the Chairman may take such further steps as may reasonably be necessary to enforce it and / or he may adjourn the meeting." I am specifically relating the question to who requested that the police were contacted during the recent incident? Was this the chairman or did another members of staff/chamber undertake the call using their own initiative? Yours sincerely, Mark Pullen The answer seems somewhat vague and I cannot seem to identify exactly which part of the quoted Legislation anyone can infer there is a right for the council to call the Police particularly when no disturbance or crime was taking place? The answer you received is somewhat confusing as it was in fact Standing Orders which were quoted by the council as being the reason for the prevention of filming. In the Approved Minutes of that Meeting on the 4th July 2013 we can read- Members in the Public Gallery proceeded to film. It was, therefore, Proposed by Councillor Morris, Seconded by Councillor A Wright, and RESOLVED That the meeting be adjourned between 6.32pm and 6.45pm due to disorderly conduct from the public gallery, in line with Standing Order 10. The Mayor re-iterated her request to members of the public not to film or record the proceedings. They continued to film. It was , therefore, Proposed by Councillor Lockley, Seconded by Councillor Morris, and RESOLVED That the meeting be adjourned between 6.47pm and 7.15pm due to disorderly conduct from the public gallery, in line with Standing Order 10. The meeting commenced at 7.20 p.m. following the removal of members of the public who had ignored the Mayor’s request. The Minutes are supposed to be a true and accurate recording of events and if this is the case why is it that there is no mention of the Legislation Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960 recorded in them? It seems to me that you have not received a comprehensive answer to your question and this answer not only references Legislation which does not appear to account for the actions of the council but also is a Freedom of Information Request which is in conflict with the True and Accurate Record of what took place as recorded in the Minutes of that Meeting. Or are we to read, based on the FOI response you have received, that the mayor invoked standing Order 10 as outlined in the minutes due to disorderly conduct by a councillor or councillors? If this is the case then it surely it must of been the councillors who proposed and seconded the suspension of the meeting who were in fact causing a disturbance? If so, why then were members of the Public, the majority who were not even filming ejected so swiftly? Surely Mr Pullen, this FOI cannot satisfy your reasons for requesting this information? It certainly wouldn't satisfy me. Simon Mitchell[/p][/quote]Obviously Simon you are free to request further information from KTC. MarkPullen

5:29pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

Brucie, thanks for the shout out mate :) You never did answer my question about the Oz beer - unless you buried it in one of your longer contributions. For what its worth I checked out your Facebook page and found nothing offensive - not sure what BadgerFace is on about there but does anyone? The fact that you look like Marc Almond and your friends/family look like the cast of Shameless was quite amusing though especially as you have Shameless as one of your 'likes' - its one of mine too :)
Brucie, thanks for the shout out mate :) You never did answer my question about the Oz beer - unless you buried it in one of your longer contributions. For what its worth I checked out your Facebook page and found nothing offensive - not sure what BadgerFace is on about there but does anyone? The fact that you look like Marc Almond and your friends/family look like the cast of Shameless was quite amusing though especially as you have Shameless as one of your 'likes' - its one of mine too :) Little Green Man

5:33pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Katiery wrote:
MarkPullen, farcical is not funny, nor are the sarcastic and stupid remarks being made on here by people who should be answering the questions rather than making digs at those who have legitimate concerns. Can't laugh at any of it, sorry.

Always a 708 Skinhead, The name Cavetown gives no indication that it has anything to do with the Cavendish family and their relationship to Keighley, it just give the impression that we are all backward, cave dwellers and thick as planks. Enough people deride Keighley already, so yes, I detest the name. I am proud of where I live, even if I am not so proud of the way the town is currently being run.
Just to clarify Katiery that I indicated that the "issues alleged relating to KTC are serious and it themselves not a laughing matter but the responses on these pages have, at times, been farcical and comedic to say the least."

Wikipedia (which is always right!!) defines farcical in the manner which I was alluding to - http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Farcical

The manner in which many contributors (including myself) have used barbed comments veiled in humour would be more at home in other forms of media.

Whilst I accept that you don't find their comments humorous that doesn't mean that others can't. Each to their own.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: MarkPullen, farcical is not funny, nor are the sarcastic and stupid remarks being made on here by people who should be answering the questions rather than making digs at those who have legitimate concerns. Can't laugh at any of it, sorry. Always a 708 Skinhead, The name Cavetown gives no indication that it has anything to do with the Cavendish family and their relationship to Keighley, it just give the impression that we are all backward, cave dwellers and thick as planks. Enough people deride Keighley already, so yes, I detest the name. I am proud of where I live, even if I am not so proud of the way the town is currently being run.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify Katiery that I indicated that the "issues alleged relating to KTC are serious and it themselves not a laughing matter but the responses on these pages have, at times, been farcical and comedic to say the least." Wikipedia (which is always right!!) defines farcical in the manner which I was alluding to - http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Farcical The manner in which many contributors (including myself) have used barbed comments veiled in humour would be more at home in other forms of media. Whilst I accept that you don't find their comments humorous that doesn't mean that others can't. Each to their own. MarkPullen

5:38pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

Welcome back Jimmy - these guys take themselves far too seriously, really if they are as whiter than white as they claim to be, correct on all their findings, and certain to 'win' their little crusade (whatever winning means) you think they could afford to smile once in a while :)
Welcome back Jimmy - these guys take themselves far too seriously, really if they are as whiter than white as they claim to be, correct on all their findings, and certain to 'win' their little crusade (whatever winning means) you think they could afford to smile once in a while :) Little Green Man

5:42pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

(Cllr John Philip, Finance Committee Chairperson and 72.6% precept hike.)
KTC Spring 2013 (Pravda) Parish Magazine
“During the meeting which set the increase, Cllr Philip held his hand up and admitted ‘getting it wrong’ about the project being able to cover its costs from day one. He explained: “Obviously I am sorry about that, but I am still convinced it will break-even, come good, and eventually move into profitability, though thanks largely to the overall economic climate it is obviously taking longer than predicted.”
“Hind-sight is a wonderful gift – and if we had it we would all do some things differently. “But few of us do, and when we started out even fewer of us could have foreseen that the economy would go into double dip and even triple-dip recession.”


The Independent. Thursday 02 May 2013
 The UK economy may never have suffered a "double dip" recession, researchers have said - just days after official figures showed it avoided an unprecedented "triple-dip".
http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom
e-news/uk-economy-ma
y-never-have-suffere
d-double-dip-recessi
on-claim-researchers
-8600360.html


In fairness we are facing harsh economic times which KTC were fully aware had been going on for some time before they council took on the civic centre project.

K.N. Thursday 16th May 2013. Shock as Keighley Civic Centre is found to be £162,000 in the red
(Town clerk Miggy Bailey)
“Obviously everyone wholeheartedly wishes the project was already ‘in profit’ but the council has to operate in the real world - which includes a continuing economic downturn that has been going on since 2008,” she said.”

So why during a continuing economic downturn that has been going on since 2008 did the council burden the town with a fifty year debt to create something which needs people spending money to make it viable?

Questions.

In hard economic times that have been ongoing since 2008 how many hard pressed Keighley families will be spending money on visiting a police museum?

In hard economic times that have been ongoing since 2008 how many hard pressed families will be travelling from all over the UK to Keighley to visit a police museum?

Answer: £252,565 civic centre deficit

Cause: Keighley Town Council

Solution: Full investigation of the council

Tick Tock
(Cllr John Philip, Finance Committee Chairperson and 72.6% precept hike.) KTC Spring 2013 (Pravda) Parish Magazine “During the meeting which set the increase, Cllr Philip held his hand up and admitted ‘getting it wrong’ about the project being able to cover its costs from day one. He explained: “Obviously I am sorry about that, but I am still convinced it will break-even, come good, and eventually move into profitability, though thanks largely to the overall economic climate it is obviously taking longer than predicted.” “Hind-sight is a wonderful gift – and if we had it we would all do some things differently. “But few of us do, and when we started out even fewer of us could have foreseen that the economy would go into double dip and even triple-dip recession.” The Independent. Thursday 02 May 2013  The UK economy may never have suffered a "double dip" recession, researchers have said - just days after official figures showed it avoided an unprecedented "triple-dip". http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom e-news/uk-economy-ma y-never-have-suffere d-double-dip-recessi on-claim-researchers -8600360.html In fairness we are facing harsh economic times which KTC were fully aware had been going on for some time before they council took on the civic centre project. K.N. Thursday 16th May 2013. Shock as Keighley Civic Centre is found to be £162,000 in the red (Town clerk Miggy Bailey) “Obviously everyone wholeheartedly wishes the project was already ‘in profit’ but the council has to operate in the real world - which includes a continuing economic downturn that has been going on since 2008,” she said.” So why during a continuing economic downturn that has been going on since 2008 did the council burden the town with a fifty year debt to create something which needs people spending money to make it viable? Questions. In hard economic times that have been ongoing since 2008 how many hard pressed Keighley families will be spending money on visiting a police museum? In hard economic times that have been ongoing since 2008 how many hard pressed families will be travelling from all over the UK to Keighley to visit a police museum? Answer: £252,565 civic centre deficit Cause: Keighley Town Council Solution: Full investigation of the council Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

5:42pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Unfortunately Mr Pullen,
I do not receive responses from the council to my communications.
I am however fully aware of the reasoning behind the wording of the FOI response you have received and suggest to those councillors reading this, I will expose your deceitful re writing of History and your manipulation of the Freedom of Information process to do so, the moment you attempt to implement your plan.
Try it and see.

Tick Tock

Simon
Unfortunately Mr Pullen, I do not receive responses from the council to my communications. I am however fully aware of the reasoning behind the wording of the FOI response you have received and suggest to those councillors reading this, I will expose your deceitful re writing of History and your manipulation of the Freedom of Information process to do so, the moment you attempt to implement your plan. Try it and see. Tick Tock Simon Always a 708 Skinhead

5:49pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

MarkPullen, I apologise. I do not have the same sense of humour as most people, I find comedy boring, farce ridiculous and sarcastic comments, such as the one made by littlegreenman above, insulting. Other people may find it is something to laugh at and that is their choice.
MarkPullen, I apologise. I do not have the same sense of humour as most people, I find comedy boring, farce ridiculous and sarcastic comments, such as the one made by littlegreenman above, insulting. Other people may find it is something to laugh at and that is their choice. Katiery

5:55pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Welcome back Jimmy - these guys take themselves far too seriously, really if they are as whiter than white as they claim to be, correct on all their findings, and certain to 'win' their little crusade (whatever winning means) you think they could afford to smile once in a while :)
Perhaps if some members of the Town Council took themselves a little bit more seriously and acted decorously then there wouldn't be a 'crusade' to win!
I really hope that your comment about being a councillor was made in jest.
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Welcome back Jimmy - these guys take themselves far too seriously, really if they are as whiter than white as they claim to be, correct on all their findings, and certain to 'win' their little crusade (whatever winning means) you think they could afford to smile once in a while :)[/p][/quote]Perhaps if some members of the Town Council took themselves a little bit more seriously and acted decorously then there wouldn't be a 'crusade' to win! I really hope that your comment about being a councillor was made in jest. Katiery

5:56pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

Four-O-Clubs wrote:
Katiery wrote:
notthecivic wrote:
i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!!
What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?
What does an edl or bnp facebook page look like any way? My guess notthecivic is either a councillor or somebody working for the council like the other muppets on here, hiding behind a screen name. Wouldn't be surprised if notthecivic, badgergate & badgergate are the same person! Why would they/he/her be so hell bent on simply trying to(and not very well in my opinion) discredit these "cavetowners" with out any substance? It's pretty much nothing more than D grade trolling!
FOC, Sorry matey nothing at all to do with BadgerFace, if you take the time to read you'll see that he is obsessed with some hidden agenda that the Cavedwellers apparently have - on the other hand I'm just stirring things up and seeing what happens. I do occasionally try to make a valid point but its usually shouted down by the CaveDwellers or dismissed as irrelevant, hence my slightly negative attitude to them. As for the vendetta thing - it does seem like that - mainly because their only objective seems to be to bring down the council - they have no answers past that - if they achieved their aim tomorrow Keighley would still be in exactly the same position - financially the people of Keighley are in exactly the same position, council or no council - the CaveDwellers crusade right or wrong actually will achieve NOTHING as far as the average Joe on North Street is concerned. Thats my opinion!! Like it or don't like it its up to you, but I'd appreciate a sensible comment on my thoughts instead of the usual 'LGM is a councillor', 'LGM is mentally deficient' or the usual 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'
[quote][p][bold]Four-O-Clubs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?[/p][/quote]What does an edl or bnp facebook page look like any way? My guess notthecivic is either a councillor or somebody working for the council like the other muppets on here, hiding behind a screen name. Wouldn't be surprised if notthecivic, badgergate & badgergate are the same person! Why would they/he/her be so hell bent on simply trying to(and not very well in my opinion) discredit these "cavetowners" with out any substance? It's pretty much nothing more than D grade trolling![/p][/quote]FOC, Sorry matey nothing at all to do with BadgerFace, if you take the time to read you'll see that he is obsessed with some hidden agenda that the Cavedwellers apparently have - on the other hand I'm just stirring things up and seeing what happens. I do occasionally try to make a valid point but its usually shouted down by the CaveDwellers or dismissed as irrelevant, hence my slightly negative attitude to them. As for the vendetta thing - it does seem like that - mainly because their only objective seems to be to bring down the council - they have no answers past that - if they achieved their aim tomorrow Keighley would still be in exactly the same position - financially the people of Keighley are in exactly the same position, council or no council - the CaveDwellers crusade right or wrong actually will achieve NOTHING as far as the average Joe on North Street is concerned. Thats my opinion!! Like it or don't like it its up to you, but I'd appreciate a sensible comment on my thoughts instead of the usual 'LGM is a councillor', 'LGM is mentally deficient' or the usual 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count' Little Green Man

5:57pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

Katiery wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Welcome back Jimmy - these guys take themselves far too seriously, really if they are as whiter than white as they claim to be, correct on all their findings, and certain to 'win' their little crusade (whatever winning means) you think they could afford to smile once in a while :)
Perhaps if some members of the Town Council took themselves a little bit more seriously and acted decorously then there wouldn't be a 'crusade' to win!
I really hope that your comment about being a councillor was made in jest.
Oh! so now you want me to be funny???
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Welcome back Jimmy - these guys take themselves far too seriously, really if they are as whiter than white as they claim to be, correct on all their findings, and certain to 'win' their little crusade (whatever winning means) you think they could afford to smile once in a while :)[/p][/quote]Perhaps if some members of the Town Council took themselves a little bit more seriously and acted decorously then there wouldn't be a 'crusade' to win! I really hope that your comment about being a councillor was made in jest.[/p][/quote]Oh! so now you want me to be funny??? Little Green Man

5:57pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

Katiery wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Welcome back Jimmy - these guys take themselves far too seriously, really if they are as whiter than white as they claim to be, correct on all their findings, and certain to 'win' their little crusade (whatever winning means) you think they could afford to smile once in a while :)
Perhaps if some members of the Town Council took themselves a little bit more seriously and acted decorously then there wouldn't be a 'crusade' to win!
I really hope that your comment about being a councillor was made in jest.
Oh! so now you want me to be funny???
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Welcome back Jimmy - these guys take themselves far too seriously, really if they are as whiter than white as they claim to be, correct on all their findings, and certain to 'win' their little crusade (whatever winning means) you think they could afford to smile once in a while :)[/p][/quote]Perhaps if some members of the Town Council took themselves a little bit more seriously and acted decorously then there wouldn't be a 'crusade' to win! I really hope that your comment about being a councillor was made in jest.[/p][/quote]Oh! so now you want me to be funny??? Little Green Man

5:58pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

Yes that was a joke :)
Yes that was a joke :) Little Green Man

6:00pm Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Just a small point of order Graham Forsyth - you state that Cavetown "has created a closed Facebook site which those who wish to join may request to do so and share their views. The reason for it being a closed site is obvious from the diatribe that is aimed at Cavetown when on an open site."

I have offered support for the Cavetown campaign on these threads and yet my requests to join are continually rejected.

Who feels that this member of the public is not entitled to join?
What criteria is being used?
Its closed so they can talk about you !.
Simon Mitchell

If Mr Pullen isn't, as he claims, part of of the cover up currently being undertaken at KTC, then his next FOI request should be for clarification on exactly which part of the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960. sanctions the actions of KTC on the 4th July 2013. Of course if his is genuinely not playing along with their version of the 'game" and he fails to make this request, then you can only assume that he is being manipulated by those at KTC who have something to hide. My opinion on this? If you are not a part of the solution then you are a part of the problem.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: Just a small point of order Graham Forsyth - you state that Cavetown "has created a closed Facebook site which those who wish to join may request to do so and share their views. The reason for it being a closed site is obvious from the diatribe that is aimed at Cavetown when on an open site." I have offered support for the Cavetown campaign on these threads and yet my requests to join are continually rejected. Who feels that this member of the public is not entitled to join? What criteria is being used?[/p][/quote]Its closed so they can talk about you !. Simon Mitchell If Mr Pullen isn't, as he claims, part of of the cover up currently being undertaken at KTC, then his next FOI request should be for clarification on exactly which part of the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960. sanctions the actions of KTC on the 4th July 2013. Of course if his is genuinely not playing along with their version of the 'game" and he fails to make this request, then you can only assume that he is being manipulated by those at KTC who have something to hide. My opinion on this? If you are not a part of the solution then you are a part of the problem. badgergate

6:03pm Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Katiery wrote:
MarkPullen, I apologise. I do not have the same sense of humour as most people, I find comedy boring, farce ridiculous and sarcastic comments, such as the one made by littlegreenman above, insulting. Other people may find it is something to laugh at and that is their choice.
You are also mentioned on the facebook page !

Simon Mitchell
Somebody on the KN site mentioned that they detested the name Cavetown.
While I am aware that many people see the name as "not nice". This is not my belief on the matter. I would love to hear from anyone who can shed some light on the name.
Here is my question of the person who posted on the KN thread-
Katiery,
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: MarkPullen, I apologise. I do not have the same sense of humour as most people, I find comedy boring, farce ridiculous and sarcastic comments, such as the one made by littlegreenman above, insulting. Other people may find it is something to laugh at and that is their choice.[/p][/quote]You are also mentioned on the facebook page ! Simon Mitchell Somebody on the KN site mentioned that they detested the name Cavetown. While I am aware that many people see the name as "not nice". This is not my belief on the matter. I would love to hear from anyone who can shed some light on the name. Here is my question of the person who posted on the KN thread- Katiery, badgergate

6:06pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

So what you are saying Little Green Man is that the people of Keighley have been royally screwed and will now just have to accept that they have to pay out increases non stop for the next 50 years?

Perhaps if enough people show how concerned they are then the town council will sell off the building that is draining our money - the interest on the loan payment is £48,290.00 - put their house in order and remove those who think they are playing with monopoly money. Or should we just shut up, go away and let our money be squandered without question?
So what you are saying Little Green Man is that the people of Keighley have been royally screwed and will now just have to accept that they have to pay out increases non stop for the next 50 years? Perhaps if enough people show how concerned they are then the town council will sell off the building that is draining our money - the interest on the loan payment is £48,290.00 - put their house in order and remove those who think they are playing with monopoly money. Or should we just shut up, go away and let our money be squandered without question? Katiery

6:11pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

badgergate wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Just a small point of order Graham Forsyth - you state that Cavetown "has created a closed Facebook site which those who wish to join may request to do so and share their views. The reason for it being a closed site is obvious from the diatribe that is aimed at Cavetown when on an open site."

I have offered support for the Cavetown campaign on these threads and yet my requests to join are continually rejected.

Who feels that this member of the public is not entitled to join?
What criteria is being used?
Its closed so they can talk about you !.
Simon Mitchell

If Mr Pullen isn't, as he claims, part of of the cover up currently being undertaken at KTC, then his next FOI request should be for clarification on exactly which part of the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960. sanctions the actions of KTC on the 4th July 2013. Of course if his is genuinely not playing along with their version of the 'game" and he fails to make this request, then you can only assume that he is being manipulated by those at KTC who have something to hide. My opinion on this? If you are not a part of the solution then you are a part of the problem.
I ain't being manipulated by any folks on this 'ere t'interweb I'll have you know!! ;-)

I am curious though as to why, when I've openly posted support for the Cavetown campaign, I'm refused the opportunity to join the FB presence?

Obviously I have been vocal (via the keyboard) about the image being portrayed by some "gang" members and I'm sure that my run-ins are seen as a barrier.

I'm sure I'll survive!

It does go back to my sign offs recently....

Whiter than white
Who watches the Watchers?
Tik-Tok
Just saying

And now....

Bah! Humbug!
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: Just a small point of order Graham Forsyth - you state that Cavetown "has created a closed Facebook site which those who wish to join may request to do so and share their views. The reason for it being a closed site is obvious from the diatribe that is aimed at Cavetown when on an open site." I have offered support for the Cavetown campaign on these threads and yet my requests to join are continually rejected. Who feels that this member of the public is not entitled to join? What criteria is being used?[/p][/quote]Its closed so they can talk about you !. Simon Mitchell If Mr Pullen isn't, as he claims, part of of the cover up currently being undertaken at KTC, then his next FOI request should be for clarification on exactly which part of the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960. sanctions the actions of KTC on the 4th July 2013. Of course if his is genuinely not playing along with their version of the 'game" and he fails to make this request, then you can only assume that he is being manipulated by those at KTC who have something to hide. My opinion on this? If you are not a part of the solution then you are a part of the problem.[/p][/quote]I ain't being manipulated by any folks on this 'ere t'interweb I'll have you know!! ;-) I am curious though as to why, when I've openly posted support for the Cavetown campaign, I'm refused the opportunity to join the FB presence? Obviously I have been vocal (via the keyboard) about the image being portrayed by some "gang" members and I'm sure that my run-ins are seen as a barrier. I'm sure I'll survive! It does go back to my sign offs recently.... Whiter than white Who watches the Watchers? Tik-Tok Just saying And now.... Bah! Humbug! MarkPullen

6:12pm Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Ya das ist gut

F/Book

Simon Mitchell Councillor Westerman berates a member of the public for what he mistakenly believes to be a matter of respect and decency. Dickens blamed for setting the standards adapted by KTC. Being already dead he is ineligible to a right of reply and as such is currently under investigation as the one responsible for placing Hog Holes up for sale. The artful dodger was unavailable for comment but a statement from NALC says " Keighley Town Council are not only in constant contact with God but are considered by the Almighty to be Omnipotent and any Standing Orders created by them are to replace the ten commandments effective immediately. The clerk is reported to be discussing the possibility of incarcerating anyone from Keighley who has not publicly stated their complete devotion to the council and attended the Civic Centre place of worship and expressed their awe and amazement at it's glory and magnificence. As irrefutable proof of the accuracy of all this cllr mitchell pointed out the undeniable existence of Keighley Council owned grit bins in Oakworth. "this should once and for all put an end to all this recent nonsense regarding truth and transparency we've heard recenty from those with proof and evidence to support their claims". MP's and district councillors were unavailable for comments as they are speechless at how lost the plot actually is at KTC. Cllr wright has declared a holy war against the fascist blackshirts of Australia and their evil ex Keighley terrorist leader known as "the son".
A motion to acknowledge this version of events was put forward and seconded by two other councillors who are hoping to be included in the inner circle.
Ya das ist gut F/Book Simon Mitchell Councillor Westerman berates a member of the public for what he mistakenly believes to be a matter of respect and decency. Dickens blamed for setting the standards adapted by KTC. Being already dead he is ineligible to a right of reply and as such is currently under investigation as the one responsible for placing Hog Holes up for sale. The artful dodger was unavailable for comment but a statement from NALC says " Keighley Town Council are not only in constant contact with God but are considered by the Almighty to be Omnipotent and any Standing Orders created by them are to replace the ten commandments effective immediately. The clerk is reported to be discussing the possibility of incarcerating anyone from Keighley who has not publicly stated their complete devotion to the council and attended the Civic Centre place of worship and expressed their awe and amazement at it's glory and magnificence. As irrefutable proof of the accuracy of all this cllr mitchell pointed out the undeniable existence of Keighley Council owned grit bins in Oakworth. "this should once and for all put an end to all this recent nonsense regarding truth and transparency we've heard recenty from those with proof and evidence to support their claims". MP's and district councillors were unavailable for comments as they are speechless at how lost the plot actually is at KTC. Cllr wright has declared a holy war against the fascist blackshirts of Australia and their evil ex Keighley terrorist leader known as "the son". A motion to acknowledge this version of events was put forward and seconded by two other councillors who are hoping to be included in the inner circle. badgergate

6:13pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

Thank you for the information Badgergate, I'm really not bothered. I don't like the name and have said why. Others may like it, that is up to them.
Thank you for the information Badgergate, I'm really not bothered. I don't like the name and have said why. Others may like it, that is up to them. Katiery

6:24pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

OK, I take it back!
Badgergate's post re the Facebook page really did make me laugh, someone does have a sense of humour and that should be printed out and handed to all Keighley residents. As did yours, MarkPullen, though as there is already a member who posts their private messages in public, perhaps they do not want another 'mole' in their midst.
OK, I take it back! Badgergate's post re the Facebook page really did make me laugh, someone does have a sense of humour and that should be printed out and handed to all Keighley residents. As did yours, MarkPullen, though as there is already a member who posts their private messages in public, perhaps they do not want another 'mole' in their midst. Katiery

6:27pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Katiery wrote:
Thank you for the information Badgergate, I'm really not bothered. I don't like the name and have said why. Others may like it, that is up to them.
IT IS A PITY THAT THE REST OF THE COMMENT FROM SIMON WAS NOT INCLUDED HE WAS ASKING WHAT YOU OBJECTIONS TO THE NAME WERE AND ALSO WENT ON TO ASK MEMBERS IF THEY ALSO BELIEVED THE NAME CAME FROM THE CAVENDISH FAMILY
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Thank you for the information Badgergate, I'm really not bothered. I don't like the name and have said why. Others may like it, that is up to them.[/p][/quote]IT IS A PITY THAT THE REST OF THE COMMENT FROM SIMON WAS NOT INCLUDED HE WAS ASKING WHAT YOU OBJECTIONS TO THE NAME WERE AND ALSO WENT ON TO ASK MEMBERS IF THEY ALSO BELIEVED THE NAME CAME FROM THE CAVENDISH FAMILY Ian-Holt Roberts

6:30pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Four-O-Clubs wrote:
Katiery wrote:
notthecivic wrote:
i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!!
What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?
What does an edl or bnp facebook page look like any way? My guess notthecivic is either a councillor or somebody working for the council like the other muppets on here, hiding behind a screen name. Wouldn't be surprised if notthecivic, badgergate & badgergate are the same person! Why would they/he/her be so hell bent on simply trying to(and not very well in my opinion) discredit these "cavetowners" with out any substance? It's pretty much nothing more than D grade trolling!
FOC, Sorry matey nothing at all to do with BadgerFace, if you take the time to read you'll see that he is obsessed with some hidden agenda that the Cavedwellers apparently have - on the other hand I'm just stirring things up and seeing what happens. I do occasionally try to make a valid point but its usually shouted down by the CaveDwellers or dismissed as irrelevant, hence my slightly negative attitude to them. As for the vendetta thing - it does seem like that - mainly because their only objective seems to be to bring down the council - they have no answers past that - if they achieved their aim tomorrow Keighley would still be in exactly the same position - financially the people of Keighley are in exactly the same position, council or no council - the CaveDwellers crusade right or wrong actually will achieve NOTHING as far as the average Joe on North Street is concerned. Thats my opinion!! Like it or don't like it its up to you, but I'd appreciate a sensible comment on my thoughts instead of the usual 'LGM is a councillor', 'LGM is mentally deficient' or the usual 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'
On the 9th Dec 2013 Little Green Man commented-
Note the smiley face? I already explained that you shouldn't take me seriously but you only listen to what you want to hear.

Today LGM you say-
Like it or don't like it its up to you, but I'd appreciate a sensible comment on my thoughts instead of the usual 'LGM is a councillor', 'LGM is mentally deficient' or the usual 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'.

You want to muck around when it suits you but expect sensible comments if you omit your smiley face punctuation?

You seem to think that anonymously spouting off on here is a far superior course of action to take than what others are doing. But then stick out your bottom lip because nobody makes a sensible comment when you want one.
Try applying some of your annoying qualities on questioning the council, (as I have with mine LGM).
Our actions might achieve Nothing as you are so convinced of, but it is worth trying.
At the moment there is a big stinking pile festering in the centre of Town. This pile is spreading disease and spoiling what ever it comes into contact with. You might be right and even if it gets cleaned up it might leave a nasty stain and another big pile might take it's place. But at least there are some who are trying to clean it up.
As always when dealing with such filth, there will be flies hanging around which are annoying and serve to spread the disease even though they are not aware that they do this.
Don't sulk because you get swatted away LGM just carry on with your perceived better way of doing things. After all LGM you are at least reasonably mediocre at it in comparison to some of the alternatives.

Far from : 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'" it is by your own admission that "that you shouldn't take me seriously "your words don't count.
Colon close Brackets.
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Four-O-Clubs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?[/p][/quote]What does an edl or bnp facebook page look like any way? My guess notthecivic is either a councillor or somebody working for the council like the other muppets on here, hiding behind a screen name. Wouldn't be surprised if notthecivic, badgergate & badgergate are the same person! Why would they/he/her be so hell bent on simply trying to(and not very well in my opinion) discredit these "cavetowners" with out any substance? It's pretty much nothing more than D grade trolling![/p][/quote]FOC, Sorry matey nothing at all to do with BadgerFace, if you take the time to read you'll see that he is obsessed with some hidden agenda that the Cavedwellers apparently have - on the other hand I'm just stirring things up and seeing what happens. I do occasionally try to make a valid point but its usually shouted down by the CaveDwellers or dismissed as irrelevant, hence my slightly negative attitude to them. As for the vendetta thing - it does seem like that - mainly because their only objective seems to be to bring down the council - they have no answers past that - if they achieved their aim tomorrow Keighley would still be in exactly the same position - financially the people of Keighley are in exactly the same position, council or no council - the CaveDwellers crusade right or wrong actually will achieve NOTHING as far as the average Joe on North Street is concerned. Thats my opinion!! Like it or don't like it its up to you, but I'd appreciate a sensible comment on my thoughts instead of the usual 'LGM is a councillor', 'LGM is mentally deficient' or the usual 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'[/p][/quote]On the 9th Dec 2013 Little Green Man commented- Note the smiley face? I already explained that you shouldn't take me seriously but you only listen to what you want to hear. Today LGM you say- Like it or don't like it its up to you, but I'd appreciate a sensible comment on my thoughts instead of the usual 'LGM is a councillor', 'LGM is mentally deficient' or the usual 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'. You want to muck around when it suits you but expect sensible comments if you omit your smiley face punctuation? You seem to think that anonymously spouting off on here is a far superior course of action to take than what others are doing. But then stick out your bottom lip because nobody makes a sensible comment when you want one. Try applying some of your annoying qualities on questioning the council, (as I have with mine LGM). Our actions might achieve Nothing as you are so convinced of, but it is worth trying. At the moment there is a big stinking pile festering in the centre of Town. This pile is spreading disease and spoiling what ever it comes into contact with. You might be right and even if it gets cleaned up it might leave a nasty stain and another big pile might take it's place. But at least there are some who are trying to clean it up. As always when dealing with such filth, there will be flies hanging around which are annoying and serve to spread the disease even though they are not aware that they do this. Don't sulk because you get swatted away LGM just carry on with your perceived better way of doing things. After all LGM you are at least reasonably mediocre at it in comparison to some of the alternatives. Far from : 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'" it is by your own admission that "that you shouldn't take me seriously "your words don't count. Colon close Brackets. Always a 708 Skinhead

6:33pm Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Katiery wrote:
Thank you for the information Badgergate, I'm really not bothered. I don't like the name and have said why. Others may like it, that is up to them.
IT IS A PITY THAT THE REST OF THE COMMENT FROM SIMON WAS NOT INCLUDED HE WAS ASKING WHAT YOU OBJECTIONS TO THE NAME WERE AND ALSO WENT ON TO ASK MEMBERS IF THEY ALSO BELIEVED THE NAME CAME FROM THE CAVENDISH FAMILY
Thanks
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Thank you for the information Badgergate, I'm really not bothered. I don't like the name and have said why. Others may like it, that is up to them.[/p][/quote]IT IS A PITY THAT THE REST OF THE COMMENT FROM SIMON WAS NOT INCLUDED HE WAS ASKING WHAT YOU OBJECTIONS TO THE NAME WERE AND ALSO WENT ON TO ASK MEMBERS IF THEY ALSO BELIEVED THE NAME CAME FROM THE CAVENDISH FAMILY[/p][/quote]Thanks badgergate

6:36pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Four-O-Clubs wrote:
Katiery wrote:
notthecivic wrote:
i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!!
What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?
What does an edl or bnp facebook page look like any way? My guess notthecivic is either a councillor or somebody working for the council like the other muppets on here, hiding behind a screen name. Wouldn't be surprised if notthecivic, badgergate & badgergate are the same person! Why would they/he/her be so hell bent on simply trying to(and not very well in my opinion) discredit these "cavetowners" with out any substance? It's pretty much nothing more than D grade trolling!
FOC, Sorry matey nothing at all to do with BadgerFace, if you take the time to read you'll see that he is obsessed with some hidden agenda that the Cavedwellers apparently have - on the other hand I'm just stirring things up and seeing what happens. I do occasionally try to make a valid point but its usually shouted down by the CaveDwellers or dismissed as irrelevant, hence my slightly negative attitude to them. As for the vendetta thing - it does seem like that - mainly because their only objective seems to be to bring down the council - they have no answers past that - if they achieved their aim tomorrow Keighley would still be in exactly the same position - financially the people of Keighley are in exactly the same position, council or no council - the CaveDwellers crusade right or wrong actually will achieve NOTHING as far as the average Joe on North Street is concerned. Thats my opinion!! Like it or don't like it its up to you, but I'd appreciate a sensible comment on my thoughts instead of the usual 'LGM is a councillor', 'LGM is mentally deficient' or the usual 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'
On the 9th Dec 2013 Little Green Man commented-
Note the smiley face? I already explained that you shouldn't take me seriously but you only listen to what you want to hear.

Today LGM you say-
Like it or don't like it its up to you, but I'd appreciate a sensible comment on my thoughts instead of the usual 'LGM is a councillor', 'LGM is mentally deficient' or the usual 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'.

You want to muck around when it suits you but expect sensible comments if you omit your smiley face punctuation?

You seem to think that anonymously spouting off on here is a far superior course of action to take than what others are doing. But then stick out your bottom lip because nobody makes a sensible comment when you want one.
Try applying some of your annoying qualities on questioning the council, (as I have with mine LGM).
Our actions might achieve Nothing as you are so convinced of, but it is worth trying.
At the moment there is a big stinking pile festering in the centre of Town. This pile is spreading disease and spoiling what ever it comes into contact with. You might be right and even if it gets cleaned up it might leave a nasty stain and another big pile might take it's place. But at least there are some who are trying to clean it up.
As always when dealing with such filth, there will be flies hanging around which are annoying and serve to spread the disease even though they are not aware that they do this.
Don't sulk because you get swatted away LGM just carry on with your perceived better way of doing things. After all LGM you are at least reasonably mediocre at it in comparison to some of the alternatives.

Far from : 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'" it is by your own admission that "that you shouldn't take me seriously "your words don't count.
Colon close Brackets.
Must be bad if you can smell it Down Under! ;-)

Honest attempt at humour Simon.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Four-O-Clubs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]What exactly has that got to do with concerns about the behaviour of Keighley Town Council and it's Councillors?[/p][/quote]What does an edl or bnp facebook page look like any way? My guess notthecivic is either a councillor or somebody working for the council like the other muppets on here, hiding behind a screen name. Wouldn't be surprised if notthecivic, badgergate & badgergate are the same person! Why would they/he/her be so hell bent on simply trying to(and not very well in my opinion) discredit these "cavetowners" with out any substance? It's pretty much nothing more than D grade trolling![/p][/quote]FOC, Sorry matey nothing at all to do with BadgerFace, if you take the time to read you'll see that he is obsessed with some hidden agenda that the Cavedwellers apparently have - on the other hand I'm just stirring things up and seeing what happens. I do occasionally try to make a valid point but its usually shouted down by the CaveDwellers or dismissed as irrelevant, hence my slightly negative attitude to them. As for the vendetta thing - it does seem like that - mainly because their only objective seems to be to bring down the council - they have no answers past that - if they achieved their aim tomorrow Keighley would still be in exactly the same position - financially the people of Keighley are in exactly the same position, council or no council - the CaveDwellers crusade right or wrong actually will achieve NOTHING as far as the average Joe on North Street is concerned. Thats my opinion!! Like it or don't like it its up to you, but I'd appreciate a sensible comment on my thoughts instead of the usual 'LGM is a councillor', 'LGM is mentally deficient' or the usual 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'[/p][/quote]On the 9th Dec 2013 Little Green Man commented- Note the smiley face? I already explained that you shouldn't take me seriously but you only listen to what you want to hear. Today LGM you say- Like it or don't like it its up to you, but I'd appreciate a sensible comment on my thoughts instead of the usual 'LGM is a councillor', 'LGM is mentally deficient' or the usual 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'. You want to muck around when it suits you but expect sensible comments if you omit your smiley face punctuation? You seem to think that anonymously spouting off on here is a far superior course of action to take than what others are doing. But then stick out your bottom lip because nobody makes a sensible comment when you want one. Try applying some of your annoying qualities on questioning the council, (as I have with mine LGM). Our actions might achieve Nothing as you are so convinced of, but it is worth trying. At the moment there is a big stinking pile festering in the centre of Town. This pile is spreading disease and spoiling what ever it comes into contact with. You might be right and even if it gets cleaned up it might leave a nasty stain and another big pile might take it's place. But at least there are some who are trying to clean it up. As always when dealing with such filth, there will be flies hanging around which are annoying and serve to spread the disease even though they are not aware that they do this. Don't sulk because you get swatted away LGM just carry on with your perceived better way of doing things. After all LGM you are at least reasonably mediocre at it in comparison to some of the alternatives. Far from : 'you're not one of us so your opinion doesn't count'" it is by your own admission that "that you shouldn't take me seriously "your words don't count. Colon close Brackets.[/p][/quote]Must be bad if you can smell it Down Under! ;-) Honest attempt at humour Simon. MarkPullen

6:41pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

"IT IS A PITY THAT THE REST OF THE COMMENT FROM SIMON WAS NOT INCLUDED HE WAS ASKING WHAT YOU OBJECTIONS TO THE NAME WERE AND ALSO WENT ON TO ASK MEMBERS IF THEY ALSO BELIEVED THE NAME CAME FROM THE CAVENDISH FAMILY"

Sorry, I'm not sure why this is relevant? I have stated why I don't like the name about 20 posts up so he already has my answer. What he discusses in his private group is up to him.
"IT IS A PITY THAT THE REST OF THE COMMENT FROM SIMON WAS NOT INCLUDED HE WAS ASKING WHAT YOU OBJECTIONS TO THE NAME WERE AND ALSO WENT ON TO ASK MEMBERS IF THEY ALSO BELIEVED THE NAME CAME FROM THE CAVENDISH FAMILY" Sorry, I'm not sure why this is relevant? I have stated why I don't like the name about 20 posts up so he already has my answer. What he discusses in his private group is up to him. Katiery

6:45pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

Oohh Brucie! Proper upset aren't we? and you accuse me of sticking out the bottom lip! You've proven my point exactly - as soon as I make an attempt to make a point you CaveDwellers are in there hurling childish insults - that is exactly why I dont bother trying to make a sensible point, I even agree with what you say but your so wrapped up in your little conspiracy you dont even realise.
Oohh Brucie! Proper upset aren't we? and you accuse me of sticking out the bottom lip! You've proven my point exactly - as soon as I make an attempt to make a point you CaveDwellers are in there hurling childish insults - that is exactly why I dont bother trying to make a sensible point, I even agree with what you say but your so wrapped up in your little conspiracy you dont even realise. Little Green Man

6:46pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Mark Pullen. 4:28pm Fri 20 Dec 13
“It was pointed out later though that I hadn't requested information regarding the 2013-2014 number of requests to date - this was due to it not being a complete year.”

Why would you only ask for FOI's made in any complete year if your interest was to know what FOI's requests were made and rejected etc?

Take this quote for instance from Cllr Sally Walker from this very letter:

“Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests.”

K.N Friday 12th April 2013.Freedom comes at a high price for swamped Keighley councillors.
“Keighley town councillors have agreed to form a new advisory committee to help handle an increasing number of Freedom of Information requests (FOIs). “
“Coun Morris said: “The number of FOIs has increased during the past couple of months.”
“Coun Tony Wright said: “There’s a lot of information being requested at the moment .”

The evidence here shows that 2013 has been a very busy time for KTC dealing with FOI requests. What a pity you only asked for those from complete years, for as you will see the, reply you attained would have been very much different if you had also asked for those FOI's made up to the time of you asking.
Mark Pullen. 4:28pm Fri 20 Dec 13 “It was pointed out later though that I hadn't requested information regarding the 2013-2014 number of requests to date - this was due to it not being a complete year.” Why would you only ask for FOI's made in any complete year if your interest was to know what FOI's requests were made and rejected etc? Take this quote for instance from Cllr Sally Walker from this very letter: “Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests.” K.N Friday 12th April 2013.Freedom comes at a high price for swamped Keighley councillors. “Keighley town councillors have agreed to form a new advisory committee to help handle an increasing number of Freedom of Information requests (FOIs). “ “Coun Morris said: “The number of FOIs has increased during the past couple of months.” “Coun Tony Wright said: “There’s a lot of information being requested at the moment .” The evidence here shows that 2013 has been a very busy time for KTC dealing with FOI requests. What a pity you only asked for those from complete years, for as you will see the, reply you attained would have been very much different if you had also asked for those FOI's made up to the time of you asking. Graham Forsyth

6:54pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
Mark Pullen. 4:28pm Fri 20 Dec 13
“It was pointed out later though that I hadn't requested information regarding the 2013-2014 number of requests to date - this was due to it not being a complete year.”

Why would you only ask for FOI's made in any complete year if your interest was to know what FOI's requests were made and rejected etc?

Take this quote for instance from Cllr Sally Walker from this very letter:

“Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests.”

K.N Friday 12th April 2013.Freedom comes at a high price for swamped Keighley councillors.
“Keighley town councillors have agreed to form a new advisory committee to help handle an increasing number of Freedom of Information requests (FOIs). “
“Coun Morris said: “The number of FOIs has increased during the past couple of months.”
“Coun Tony Wright said: “There’s a lot of information being requested at the moment .”

The evidence here shows that 2013 has been a very busy time for KTC dealing with FOI requests. What a pity you only asked for those from complete years, for as you will see the, reply you attained would have been very much different if you had also asked for those FOI's made up to the time of you asking.
I'm not aware that anybody else had made a similar request so find your decision (and others) to pick away at it slightly galling.

Maybe you should make that specific request Graham Forsyth?
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen. 4:28pm Fri 20 Dec 13 “It was pointed out later though that I hadn't requested information regarding the 2013-2014 number of requests to date - this was due to it not being a complete year.” Why would you only ask for FOI's made in any complete year if your interest was to know what FOI's requests were made and rejected etc? Take this quote for instance from Cllr Sally Walker from this very letter: “Also, the town council has been subjected to a sustained campaign by an unrepresentative minority group, called Cavetown Council. This has bombarded the council with a stream of e-mails and Freedom of Information requests.” K.N Friday 12th April 2013.Freedom comes at a high price for swamped Keighley councillors. “Keighley town councillors have agreed to form a new advisory committee to help handle an increasing number of Freedom of Information requests (FOIs). “ “Coun Morris said: “The number of FOIs has increased during the past couple of months.” “Coun Tony Wright said: “There’s a lot of information being requested at the moment .” The evidence here shows that 2013 has been a very busy time for KTC dealing with FOI requests. What a pity you only asked for those from complete years, for as you will see the, reply you attained would have been very much different if you had also asked for those FOI's made up to the time of you asking.[/p][/quote]I'm not aware that anybody else had made a similar request so find your decision (and others) to pick away at it slightly galling. Maybe you should make that specific request Graham Forsyth? MarkPullen

6:56pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

So the three admins on the Cavetown Council Facebook group are:
Liz Mitchell
Simon Mitchell
James McGrath

Would they like to provide me with the reasons behind rejecting my legitimate request to become a member?

It might be easier to click "accept"
So the three admins on the Cavetown Council Facebook group are: Liz Mitchell Simon Mitchell James McGrath Would they like to provide me with the reasons behind rejecting my legitimate request to become a member? It might be easier to click "accept" MarkPullen

7:02pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Katiery, I reposted the comment I had put to you here in the Cavetown site as not everyone reads these threads (you can see why).
It was simply a way to ask the same question I had asked of you and include a reason why I had asked it.

As I am aware of the conduct of Badgergate and consider your posts here to be valid and relevant, it was never my intention to appear to be insulting you.
My apologies if it appears this way.

Mr Pullen,
I do not make the decisions on who joins the Cavetown Site. But I do offer my opinion on the subject.
You have not criticised the cause of Cavetown but have been very vocal about our conduct and presentation.
Your presence may seem a little overbearing due to this and I suspect this is the main reason you have not been allowed to join.
As you can see from Badgergates wonderful input on these threads, people are already wary about how extreme this council is prepared to act to save it's self.
Also, if you want my opinion, though I am not sure you do, I do believe you when you state that you agree with our intentions although I do not think that this warrants enough reason to join forces.
After all, if you were one of us, how could I of then ensured that I got to put my thoughts on your FOI request to you in a Public Forum and you answer it honestly as an indiviidual?

Can you see where I am coming from Mr Pullen?
Tick Tock

Badgergate, you are doing a fine job. Keep up the good work. Particularly liked you using the Dickens one. Spoke volumes about who you really are. Why don't you cut and paste the Letter from the Freemasons? Well worth a read if you ask me. Have you checked your emails yet? You might be a little angry when you do old chap...
Tick Tock
Katiery, I reposted the comment I had put to you here in the Cavetown site as not everyone reads these threads (you can see why). It was simply a way to ask the same question I had asked of you and include a reason why I had asked it. As I am aware of the conduct of Badgergate and consider your posts here to be valid and relevant, it was never my intention to appear to be insulting you. My apologies if it appears this way. Mr Pullen, I do not make the decisions on who joins the Cavetown Site. But I do offer my opinion on the subject. You have not criticised the cause of Cavetown but have been very vocal about our conduct and presentation. Your presence may seem a little overbearing due to this and I suspect this is the main reason you have not been allowed to join. As you can see from Badgergates wonderful input on these threads, people are already wary about how extreme this council is prepared to act to save it's self. Also, if you want my opinion, though I am not sure you do, I do believe you when you state that you agree with our intentions although I do not think that this warrants enough reason to join forces. After all, if you were one of us, how could I of then ensured that I got to put my thoughts on your FOI request to you in a Public Forum and you answer it honestly as an indiviidual? Can you see where I am coming from Mr Pullen? Tick Tock Badgergate, you are doing a fine job. Keep up the good work. Particularly liked you using the Dickens one. Spoke volumes about who you really are. Why don't you cut and paste the Letter from the Freemasons? Well worth a read if you ask me. Have you checked your emails yet? You might be a little angry when you do old chap... Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead

7:04pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

MP - the cause is going so well they are turning away potential support because they don't need it? Or maybe a little paranoia setting in?
MP - the cause is going so well they are turning away potential support because they don't need it? Or maybe a little paranoia setting in? Little Green Man

7:06pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

I don't get a mention this time Simon? I'll take that as an apology :) (feel free to ignore this if you can)
I don't get a mention this time Simon? I'll take that as an apology :) (feel free to ignore this if you can) Little Green Man

7:09pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Katiery, I reposted the comment I had put to you here in the Cavetown site as not everyone reads these threads (you can see why).
It was simply a way to ask the same question I had asked of you and include a reason why I had asked it.

As I am aware of the conduct of Badgergate and consider your posts here to be valid and relevant, it was never my intention to appear to be insulting you.
My apologies if it appears this way.

Mr Pullen,
I do not make the decisions on who joins the Cavetown Site. But I do offer my opinion on the subject.
You have not criticised the cause of Cavetown but have been very vocal about our conduct and presentation.
Your presence may seem a little overbearing due to this and I suspect this is the main reason you have not been allowed to join.
As you can see from Badgergates wonderful input on these threads, people are already wary about how extreme this council is prepared to act to save it's self.
Also, if you want my opinion, though I am not sure you do, I do believe you when you state that you agree with our intentions although I do not think that this warrants enough reason to join forces.
After all, if you were one of us, how could I of then ensured that I got to put my thoughts on your FOI request to you in a Public Forum and you answer it honestly as an indiviidual?

Can you see where I am coming from Mr Pullen?
Tick Tock

Badgergate, you are doing a fine job. Keep up the good work. Particularly liked you using the Dickens one. Spoke volumes about who you really are. Why don't you cut and paste the Letter from the Freemasons? Well worth a read if you ask me. Have you checked your emails yet? You might be a little angry when you do old chap...
Tick Tock
So as an admin you are not in a position to accept my request to join?

I'm still keen to understand the criteria used as obviously some posts on the FB page are being "leaked".

This isn't about "joining forces" but about seeing more of the reasoning behind the campaign.

Maybe if I could see more of the negativity that the Cavetown "gang" members received I would be more sympathetic?

I would still like to know who out of the three admins is rejecting my request?

Simon, you have discounted yourself so that leaves two - will they publicly admit and explain the reasons?
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Katiery, I reposted the comment I had put to you here in the Cavetown site as not everyone reads these threads (you can see why). It was simply a way to ask the same question I had asked of you and include a reason why I had asked it. As I am aware of the conduct of Badgergate and consider your posts here to be valid and relevant, it was never my intention to appear to be insulting you. My apologies if it appears this way. Mr Pullen, I do not make the decisions on who joins the Cavetown Site. But I do offer my opinion on the subject. You have not criticised the cause of Cavetown but have been very vocal about our conduct and presentation. Your presence may seem a little overbearing due to this and I suspect this is the main reason you have not been allowed to join. As you can see from Badgergates wonderful input on these threads, people are already wary about how extreme this council is prepared to act to save it's self. Also, if you want my opinion, though I am not sure you do, I do believe you when you state that you agree with our intentions although I do not think that this warrants enough reason to join forces. After all, if you were one of us, how could I of then ensured that I got to put my thoughts on your FOI request to you in a Public Forum and you answer it honestly as an indiviidual? Can you see where I am coming from Mr Pullen? Tick Tock Badgergate, you are doing a fine job. Keep up the good work. Particularly liked you using the Dickens one. Spoke volumes about who you really are. Why don't you cut and paste the Letter from the Freemasons? Well worth a read if you ask me. Have you checked your emails yet? You might be a little angry when you do old chap... Tick Tock[/p][/quote]So as an admin you are not in a position to accept my request to join? I'm still keen to understand the criteria used as obviously some posts on the FB page are being "leaked". This isn't about "joining forces" but about seeing more of the reasoning behind the campaign. Maybe if I could see more of the negativity that the Cavetown "gang" members received I would be more sympathetic? I would still like to know who out of the three admins is rejecting my request? Simon, you have discounted yourself so that leaves two - will they publicly admit and explain the reasons? MarkPullen

7:13pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

No chance Mark...
No chance Mark... Little Green Man

7:16pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Little Green Man wrote:
No chance Mark...
But I'm positive that Cavetown wish to offer further evidence that they operate a "clean" campaign and are whiter than white - I have every confidence that one of the three admins truly believes in welcoming any support to the cause.
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: No chance Mark...[/p][/quote]But I'm positive that Cavetown wish to offer further evidence that they operate a "clean" campaign and are whiter than white - I have every confidence that one of the three admins truly believes in welcoming any support to the cause. MarkPullen

7:18pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Katiery says...

Always a 708 Skinhead, I wasn't insulted. You asked me a question and I answered it. If you then posted the question and reply somewhere else then that's fine, I really don't mind at all.
Always a 708 Skinhead, I wasn't insulted. You asked me a question and I answered it. If you then posted the question and reply somewhere else then that's fine, I really don't mind at all. Katiery

7:24pm Fri 20 Dec 13

jimmy k says...

i think all the above comments proves that people on that both sides of the argument(just for the record im on neither)take themselves far too seriously,will not listen to anything they consider is 100% what they agree with,aren't willing to have a debate and basically operate a closed shop,i wonder if anybody on either side gets the irony(i think i already know the answer to that)
i think all the above comments proves that people on that both sides of the argument(just for the record im on neither)take themselves far too seriously,will not listen to anything they consider is 100% what they agree with,aren't willing to have a debate and basically operate a closed shop,i wonder if anybody on either side gets the irony(i think i already know the answer to that) jimmy k

7:58pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

“The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.”

Cllr mayor Sally Walker, the many objections to your councils accounts are due to the many problems with your councils accounts. And that there are many problem with your councils accounts is due to the many problems with how your council is being run. To now blame parishioners who have no hand in how your council is being run for finding the problems your council has created in it's accounts will not work. KTC hyperbole will not negate the facts collated, and it is the facts that will prove just who is responsible for the costs being incurred. Tick Tock
“The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.” Cllr mayor Sally Walker, the many objections to your councils accounts are due to the many problems with your councils accounts. And that there are many problem with your councils accounts is due to the many problems with how your council is being run. To now blame parishioners who have no hand in how your council is being run for finding the problems your council has created in it's accounts will not work. KTC hyperbole will not negate the facts collated, and it is the facts that will prove just who is responsible for the costs being incurred. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

8:30pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Mr Pullen,
I voiced my opinions saying you should not join our group for these reasons-
You have not yet proven to me on these threads that you are capable of going up against KTC.
Your are very easily offended.
Your prefer to add comments on threads such as this about the actions and conduct of Cavetown rather than the issue in the article. (You prefer to head the Watchers of the Watchers).
You respond to others comments far too much rather than initiate a point of relevance.
You have made little mention of the significance of the Pedley Report since sighting it.
Your were presented with conflicting information in your FOI request answer yet you failed to address this.
You are under the impression that a group of people on social media should impose a set of Standing Orders on their group.
You don't like David Samuels.


I could probably think of more but I think that is sufficient to decline your request in my opinion..
If the other 2 admin choose to ignore me, I really don't mind.
But I don't think your constant lack of input on the subject of these threads but instead your focus on the actions of our group may ensure they err on the side of caution.
It is after all the stand out factor in your commentary here.
Mr Pullen, I voiced my opinions saying you should not join our group for these reasons- You have not yet proven to me on these threads that you are capable of going up against KTC. Your are very easily offended. Your prefer to add comments on threads such as this about the actions and conduct of Cavetown rather than the issue in the article. (You prefer to head the Watchers of the Watchers). You respond to others comments far too much rather than initiate a point of relevance. You have made little mention of the significance of the Pedley Report since sighting it. Your were presented with conflicting information in your FOI request answer yet you failed to address this. You are under the impression that a group of people on social media should impose a set of Standing Orders on their group. You don't like David Samuels. I could probably think of more but I think that is sufficient to decline your request in my opinion.. If the other 2 admin choose to ignore me, I really don't mind. But I don't think your constant lack of input on the subject of these threads but instead your focus on the actions of our group may ensure they err on the side of caution. It is after all the stand out factor in your commentary here. Always a 708 Skinhead

8:50pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

Not much point in me trying to join then Marc?
Not much point in me trying to join then Marc? Little Green Man

9:15pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Mr Pullen,
I voiced my opinions saying you should not join our group for these reasons-
You have not yet proven to me on these threads that you are capable of going up against KTC.
Your are very easily offended.
Your prefer to add comments on threads such as this about the actions and conduct of Cavetown rather than the issue in the article. (You prefer to head the Watchers of the Watchers).
You respond to others comments far too much rather than initiate a point of relevance.
You have made little mention of the significance of the Pedley Report since sighting it.
Your were presented with conflicting information in your FOI request answer yet you failed to address this.
You are under the impression that a group of people on social media should impose a set of Standing Orders on their group.
You don't like David Samuels.


I could probably think of more but I think that is sufficient to decline your request in my opinion..
If the other 2 admin choose to ignore me, I really don't mind.
But I don't think your constant lack of input on the subject of these threads but instead your focus on the actions of our group may ensure they err on the side of caution.
It is after all the stand out factor in your commentary here.
So all the other 345 members have proven their support?

Please could you quantify how they have done this publicly like myself?

Rejected again!

And by the way - it's "Who watches the Watchers?"

So at least I know who's rejecting my request to join.

The requirement is to prove yourself on these threads - so much for welcoming support for the campaign Simon. Not very sporting or transparent.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Mr Pullen, I voiced my opinions saying you should not join our group for these reasons- You have not yet proven to me on these threads that you are capable of going up against KTC. Your are very easily offended. Your prefer to add comments on threads such as this about the actions and conduct of Cavetown rather than the issue in the article. (You prefer to head the Watchers of the Watchers). You respond to others comments far too much rather than initiate a point of relevance. You have made little mention of the significance of the Pedley Report since sighting it. Your were presented with conflicting information in your FOI request answer yet you failed to address this. You are under the impression that a group of people on social media should impose a set of Standing Orders on their group. You don't like David Samuels. I could probably think of more but I think that is sufficient to decline your request in my opinion.. If the other 2 admin choose to ignore me, I really don't mind. But I don't think your constant lack of input on the subject of these threads but instead your focus on the actions of our group may ensure they err on the side of caution. It is after all the stand out factor in your commentary here.[/p][/quote]So all the other 345 members have proven their support? Please could you quantify how they have done this publicly like myself? Rejected again! And by the way - it's "Who watches the Watchers?" So at least I know who's rejecting my request to join. The requirement is to prove yourself on these threads - so much for welcoming support for the campaign Simon. Not very sporting or transparent. MarkPullen

9:35pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group?
I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support.

https://www.facebook
.com/ted.waddington.
3
https://www.facebook
.com/christine.mcber
ry.9
https://www.facebook
.com/wayne.wellwood

Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads.

Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website.

4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain!

Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign?

By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-)
Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group? I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support. https://www.facebook .com/ted.waddington. 3 https://www.facebook .com/christine.mcber ry.9 https://www.facebook .com/wayne.wellwood Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads. Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website. 4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain! Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign? By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-) MarkPullen

9:46pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
“The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.”

Cllr mayor Sally Walker, the many objections to your councils accounts are due to the many problems with your councils accounts. And that there are many problem with your councils accounts is due to the many problems with how your council is being run. To now blame parishioners who have no hand in how your council is being run for finding the problems your council has created in it's accounts will not work. KTC hyperbole will not negate the facts collated, and it is the facts that will prove just who is responsible for the costs being incurred. Tick Tock
Graham LIKE YOUR GOOD SELF I HAVE ADDRESSED MY COMMENTS TO SALLY WALKER SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE MADE THE COMMENTS ,BUT I DOUBT VERY MUCH THAT SHE PUT THE INFORMATION TOGETHER AS INACCURATE AS IT WAS I DOUBT VERY MUCH THAT SHE COULD HAVE ACHIEVED THIS FLAWED STATEMENT.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: “The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.” Cllr mayor Sally Walker, the many objections to your councils accounts are due to the many problems with your councils accounts. And that there are many problem with your councils accounts is due to the many problems with how your council is being run. To now blame parishioners who have no hand in how your council is being run for finding the problems your council has created in it's accounts will not work. KTC hyperbole will not negate the facts collated, and it is the facts that will prove just who is responsible for the costs being incurred. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Graham LIKE YOUR GOOD SELF I HAVE ADDRESSED MY COMMENTS TO SALLY WALKER SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE MADE THE COMMENTS ,BUT I DOUBT VERY MUCH THAT SHE PUT THE INFORMATION TOGETHER AS INACCURATE AS IT WAS I DOUBT VERY MUCH THAT SHE COULD HAVE ACHIEVED THIS FLAWED STATEMENT. Ian-Holt Roberts

10:29pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group?
I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support.

https://www.facebook

.com/ted.waddington.

3
https://www.facebook

.com/christine.mcber

ry.9
https://www.facebook

.com/wayne.wellwood

Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads.

Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website.

4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain!

Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign?

By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-)
MARK I DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE GOING THE RIGHT WAY TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS SITE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ,AND I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE PLACED NAMES ON THIS SITE YOU SAY ARE MEMBERS OF CAVETOWN ,I DO NOT KNOW THEM AND DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THEM FROM . BUT LETS SUPPOSE THEY ARE HOW WILL THEY FEEL YOU SAYING THEY ARE AND WHAT IF THEIR LIVELIHOOD IS NOW THREATENED ,YOU YOUR SELF WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VOLUNTARY WORK ,YOU HAVE NOT ACTED IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY .
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group? I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support. https://www.facebook .com/ted.waddington. 3 https://www.facebook .com/christine.mcber ry.9 https://www.facebook .com/wayne.wellwood Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads. Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website. 4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain! Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign? By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-)[/p][/quote]MARK I DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE GOING THE RIGHT WAY TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS SITE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ,AND I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE PLACED NAMES ON THIS SITE YOU SAY ARE MEMBERS OF CAVETOWN ,I DO NOT KNOW THEM AND DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THEM FROM . BUT LETS SUPPOSE THEY ARE HOW WILL THEY FEEL YOU SAYING THEY ARE AND WHAT IF THEIR LIVELIHOOD IS NOW THREATENED ,YOU YOUR SELF WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VOLUNTARY WORK ,YOU HAVE NOT ACTED IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY . Ian-Holt Roberts

10:32pm Fri 20 Dec 13

badgergate says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Mr Pullen,
I voiced my opinions saying you should not join our group for these reasons-
You have not yet proven to me on these threads that you are capable of going up against KTC.
Your are very easily offended.
Your prefer to add comments on threads such as this about the actions and conduct of Cavetown rather than the issue in the article. (You prefer to head the Watchers of the Watchers).
You respond to others comments far too much rather than initiate a point of relevance.
You have made little mention of the significance of the Pedley Report since sighting it.
Your were presented with conflicting information in your FOI request answer yet you failed to address this.
You are under the impression that a group of people on social media should impose a set of Standing Orders on their group.
You don't like David Samuels.


I could probably think of more but I think that is sufficient to decline your request in my opinion..
If the other 2 admin choose to ignore me, I really don't mind.
But I don't think your constant lack of input on the subject of these threads but instead your focus on the actions of our group may ensure they err on the side of caution.
It is after all the stand out factor in your commentary here.
So all the other 345 members have proven their support?

Please could you quantify how they have done this publicly like myself?

Rejected again!

And by the way - it's "Who watches the Watchers?"

So at least I know who's rejecting my request to join.

The requirement is to prove yourself on these threads - so much for welcoming support for the campaign Simon. Not very sporting or transparent.
James McGrath
Can i just ask. Does any one know who Mark Pullen is. He is wanting to join.
Like · · Get Notifications · 32 minutes ago via Mobile
Molly Plunkett likes this.

Ian Holt-Roberts NO SIMON HAS TOLD HIM NO
17 minutes ago · Like
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Mr Pullen, I voiced my opinions saying you should not join our group for these reasons- You have not yet proven to me on these threads that you are capable of going up against KTC. Your are very easily offended. Your prefer to add comments on threads such as this about the actions and conduct of Cavetown rather than the issue in the article. (You prefer to head the Watchers of the Watchers). You respond to others comments far too much rather than initiate a point of relevance. You have made little mention of the significance of the Pedley Report since sighting it. Your were presented with conflicting information in your FOI request answer yet you failed to address this. You are under the impression that a group of people on social media should impose a set of Standing Orders on their group. You don't like David Samuels. I could probably think of more but I think that is sufficient to decline your request in my opinion.. If the other 2 admin choose to ignore me, I really don't mind. But I don't think your constant lack of input on the subject of these threads but instead your focus on the actions of our group may ensure they err on the side of caution. It is after all the stand out factor in your commentary here.[/p][/quote]So all the other 345 members have proven their support? Please could you quantify how they have done this publicly like myself? Rejected again! And by the way - it's "Who watches the Watchers?" So at least I know who's rejecting my request to join. The requirement is to prove yourself on these threads - so much for welcoming support for the campaign Simon. Not very sporting or transparent.[/p][/quote]James McGrath Can i just ask. Does any one know who Mark Pullen is. He is wanting to join. Like · · Get Notifications · 32 minutes ago via Mobile Molly Plunkett likes this. Ian Holt-Roberts NO SIMON HAS TOLD HIM NO 17 minutes ago · Like badgergate

10:35pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group?
I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support.

https://www.facebook


.com/ted.waddington.


3
https://www.facebook


.com/christine.mcber


ry.9
https://www.facebook


.com/wayne.wellwood

Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads.

Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website.

4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain!

Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign?

By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-)
MARK I DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE GOING THE RIGHT WAY TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS SITE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ,AND I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE PLACED NAMES ON THIS SITE YOU SAY ARE MEMBERS OF CAVETOWN ,I DO NOT KNOW THEM AND DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THEM FROM . BUT LETS SUPPOSE THEY ARE HOW WILL THEY FEEL YOU SAYING THEY ARE AND WHAT IF THEIR LIVELIHOOD IS NOW THREATENED ,YOU YOUR SELF WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VOLUNTARY WORK ,YOU HAVE NOT ACTED IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY .
I'm not sure how their livelihood can be threatened when they are visible to non-members on the FB Cavetown group!

Simon has already counted me out of being eligible to be a member due to certain criteria and I was curious as to how those selected at random had earned their place.

4 new members (supporters) in two months isn't exactly a glowing example of people offering recent support. Granted the FB group is only one element but it is a protected and private group which includes our local MP.

If those becoming members of this (FB) group feel that they are at risk then maybe they shouldn't have joined the group?

I would still welcome to know what support some of those 345 members offer publicly - especially using their own names on forums.

My point is that whilst I have questioned the presentation of alleged evidence on these comment pages I have shown genuine support for the cause.
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group? I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support. https://www.facebook .com/ted.waddington. 3 https://www.facebook .com/christine.mcber ry.9 https://www.facebook .com/wayne.wellwood Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads. Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website. 4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain! Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign? By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-)[/p][/quote]MARK I DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE GOING THE RIGHT WAY TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS SITE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ,AND I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE PLACED NAMES ON THIS SITE YOU SAY ARE MEMBERS OF CAVETOWN ,I DO NOT KNOW THEM AND DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THEM FROM . BUT LETS SUPPOSE THEY ARE HOW WILL THEY FEEL YOU SAYING THEY ARE AND WHAT IF THEIR LIVELIHOOD IS NOW THREATENED ,YOU YOUR SELF WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VOLUNTARY WORK ,YOU HAVE NOT ACTED IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY .[/p][/quote]I'm not sure how their livelihood can be threatened when they are visible to non-members on the FB Cavetown group! Simon has already counted me out of being eligible to be a member due to certain criteria and I was curious as to how those selected at random had earned their place. 4 new members (supporters) in two months isn't exactly a glowing example of people offering recent support. Granted the FB group is only one element but it is a protected and private group which includes our local MP. If those becoming members of this (FB) group feel that they are at risk then maybe they shouldn't have joined the group? I would still welcome to know what support some of those 345 members offer publicly - especially using their own names on forums. My point is that whilst I have questioned the presentation of alleged evidence on these comment pages I have shown genuine support for the cause. MarkPullen

10:36pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

IHR - its Facebook mate - its public already , MP got the names from the Cavetown facebook page itself (Im guessing) anyone can do it - I just did - you should really make sure you know these things before making allegations regarding them
IHR - its Facebook mate - its public already , MP got the names from the Cavetown facebook page itself (Im guessing) anyone can do it - I just did - you should really make sure you know these things before making allegations regarding them Little Green Man

10:37pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

badgergate wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Mr Pullen,
I voiced my opinions saying you should not join our group for these reasons-
You have not yet proven to me on these threads that you are capable of going up against KTC.
Your are very easily offended.
Your prefer to add comments on threads such as this about the actions and conduct of Cavetown rather than the issue in the article. (You prefer to head the Watchers of the Watchers).
You respond to others comments far too much rather than initiate a point of relevance.
You have made little mention of the significance of the Pedley Report since sighting it.
Your were presented with conflicting information in your FOI request answer yet you failed to address this.
You are under the impression that a group of people on social media should impose a set of Standing Orders on their group.
You don't like David Samuels.


I could probably think of more but I think that is sufficient to decline your request in my opinion..
If the other 2 admin choose to ignore me, I really don't mind.
But I don't think your constant lack of input on the subject of these threads but instead your focus on the actions of our group may ensure they err on the side of caution.
It is after all the stand out factor in your commentary here.
So all the other 345 members have proven their support?

Please could you quantify how they have done this publicly like myself?

Rejected again!

And by the way - it's "Who watches the Watchers?"

So at least I know who's rejecting my request to join.

The requirement is to prove yourself on these threads - so much for welcoming support for the campaign Simon. Not very sporting or transparent.
James McGrath
Can i just ask. Does any one know who Mark Pullen is. He is wanting to join.
Like · · Get Notifications · 32 minutes ago via Mobile
Molly Plunkett likes this.

Ian Holt-Roberts NO SIMON HAS TOLD HIM NO
17 minutes ago · Like
So the admin who rejects a willing supporter for the campaign is Simon Mitchell - based on this post.

My thanks to Molly Plunkett for liking the original post!
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Mr Pullen, I voiced my opinions saying you should not join our group for these reasons- You have not yet proven to me on these threads that you are capable of going up against KTC. Your are very easily offended. Your prefer to add comments on threads such as this about the actions and conduct of Cavetown rather than the issue in the article. (You prefer to head the Watchers of the Watchers). You respond to others comments far too much rather than initiate a point of relevance. You have made little mention of the significance of the Pedley Report since sighting it. Your were presented with conflicting information in your FOI request answer yet you failed to address this. You are under the impression that a group of people on social media should impose a set of Standing Orders on their group. You don't like David Samuels. I could probably think of more but I think that is sufficient to decline your request in my opinion.. If the other 2 admin choose to ignore me, I really don't mind. But I don't think your constant lack of input on the subject of these threads but instead your focus on the actions of our group may ensure they err on the side of caution. It is after all the stand out factor in your commentary here.[/p][/quote]So all the other 345 members have proven their support? Please could you quantify how they have done this publicly like myself? Rejected again! And by the way - it's "Who watches the Watchers?" So at least I know who's rejecting my request to join. The requirement is to prove yourself on these threads - so much for welcoming support for the campaign Simon. Not very sporting or transparent.[/p][/quote]James McGrath Can i just ask. Does any one know who Mark Pullen is. He is wanting to join. Like · · Get Notifications · 32 minutes ago via Mobile Molly Plunkett likes this. Ian Holt-Roberts NO SIMON HAS TOLD HIM NO 17 minutes ago · Like[/p][/quote]So the admin who rejects a willing supporter for the campaign is Simon Mitchell - based on this post. My thanks to Molly Plunkett for liking the original post! MarkPullen

10:39pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group?
I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support.

https://www.facebook



.com/ted.waddington.



3
https://www.facebook



.com/christine.mcber



ry.9
https://www.facebook



.com/wayne.wellwood

Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads.

Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website.

4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain!

Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign?

By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-)
MARK I DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE GOING THE RIGHT WAY TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS SITE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ,AND I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE PLACED NAMES ON THIS SITE YOU SAY ARE MEMBERS OF CAVETOWN ,I DO NOT KNOW THEM AND DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THEM FROM . BUT LETS SUPPOSE THEY ARE HOW WILL THEY FEEL YOU SAYING THEY ARE AND WHAT IF THEIR LIVELIHOOD IS NOW THREATENED ,YOU YOUR SELF WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VOLUNTARY WORK ,YOU HAVE NOT ACTED IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY .
I'm not sure how their livelihood can be threatened when they are visible to non-members on the FB Cavetown group!

Simon has already counted me out of being eligible to be a member due to certain criteria and I was curious as to how those selected at random had earned their place.

4 new members (supporters) in two months isn't exactly a glowing example of people offering recent support. Granted the FB group is only one element but it is a protected and private group which includes our local MP.

If those becoming members of this (FB) group feel that they are at risk then maybe they shouldn't have joined the group?

I would still welcome to know what support some of those 345 members offer publicly - especially using their own names on forums.

My point is that whilst I have questioned the presentation of alleged evidence on these comment pages I have shown genuine support for the cause.
MARK YOU HAVE LOST ME WHERE IS THE LIST OF MEMBERS SHOWN YOU KNOW MORE THAN ME
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group? I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support. https://www.facebook .com/ted.waddington. 3 https://www.facebook .com/christine.mcber ry.9 https://www.facebook .com/wayne.wellwood Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads. Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website. 4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain! Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign? By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-)[/p][/quote]MARK I DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE GOING THE RIGHT WAY TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS SITE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ,AND I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE PLACED NAMES ON THIS SITE YOU SAY ARE MEMBERS OF CAVETOWN ,I DO NOT KNOW THEM AND DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THEM FROM . BUT LETS SUPPOSE THEY ARE HOW WILL THEY FEEL YOU SAYING THEY ARE AND WHAT IF THEIR LIVELIHOOD IS NOW THREATENED ,YOU YOUR SELF WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VOLUNTARY WORK ,YOU HAVE NOT ACTED IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY .[/p][/quote]I'm not sure how their livelihood can be threatened when they are visible to non-members on the FB Cavetown group! Simon has already counted me out of being eligible to be a member due to certain criteria and I was curious as to how those selected at random had earned their place. 4 new members (supporters) in two months isn't exactly a glowing example of people offering recent support. Granted the FB group is only one element but it is a protected and private group which includes our local MP. If those becoming members of this (FB) group feel that they are at risk then maybe they shouldn't have joined the group? I would still welcome to know what support some of those 345 members offer publicly - especially using their own names on forums. My point is that whilst I have questioned the presentation of alleged evidence on these comment pages I have shown genuine support for the cause.[/p][/quote]MARK YOU HAVE LOST ME WHERE IS THE LIST OF MEMBERS SHOWN YOU KNOW MORE THAN ME Ian-Holt Roberts

10:43pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group?
I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support.

https://www.facebook




.com/ted.waddington.




3
https://www.facebook




.com/christine.mcber




ry.9
https://www.facebook




.com/wayne.wellwood

Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads.

Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website.

4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain!

Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign?

By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-)
MARK I DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE GOING THE RIGHT WAY TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS SITE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ,AND I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE PLACED NAMES ON THIS SITE YOU SAY ARE MEMBERS OF CAVETOWN ,I DO NOT KNOW THEM AND DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THEM FROM . BUT LETS SUPPOSE THEY ARE HOW WILL THEY FEEL YOU SAYING THEY ARE AND WHAT IF THEIR LIVELIHOOD IS NOW THREATENED ,YOU YOUR SELF WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VOLUNTARY WORK ,YOU HAVE NOT ACTED IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY .
I'm not sure how their livelihood can be threatened when they are visible to non-members on the FB Cavetown group!

Simon has already counted me out of being eligible to be a member due to certain criteria and I was curious as to how those selected at random had earned their place.

4 new members (supporters) in two months isn't exactly a glowing example of people offering recent support. Granted the FB group is only one element but it is a protected and private group which includes our local MP.

If those becoming members of this (FB) group feel that they are at risk then maybe they shouldn't have joined the group?

I would still welcome to know what support some of those 345 members offer publicly - especially using their own names on forums.

My point is that whilst I have questioned the presentation of alleged evidence on these comment pages I have shown genuine support for the cause.
MARK YOU HAVE LOST ME WHERE IS THE LIST OF MEMBERS SHOWN YOU KNOW MORE THAN ME
Maybe Simon will provide you with the list of those supporters (active or otherwise) that have passed the entrance criteria to be accepted into the Cavetown Council facebook group.

If Simon isn't prepared then I could provide the links to the other two admins.
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group? I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support. https://www.facebook .com/ted.waddington. 3 https://www.facebook .com/christine.mcber ry.9 https://www.facebook .com/wayne.wellwood Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads. Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website. 4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain! Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign? By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-)[/p][/quote]MARK I DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE GOING THE RIGHT WAY TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS SITE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ,AND I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE PLACED NAMES ON THIS SITE YOU SAY ARE MEMBERS OF CAVETOWN ,I DO NOT KNOW THEM AND DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THEM FROM . BUT LETS SUPPOSE THEY ARE HOW WILL THEY FEEL YOU SAYING THEY ARE AND WHAT IF THEIR LIVELIHOOD IS NOW THREATENED ,YOU YOUR SELF WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VOLUNTARY WORK ,YOU HAVE NOT ACTED IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY .[/p][/quote]I'm not sure how their livelihood can be threatened when they are visible to non-members on the FB Cavetown group! Simon has already counted me out of being eligible to be a member due to certain criteria and I was curious as to how those selected at random had earned their place. 4 new members (supporters) in two months isn't exactly a glowing example of people offering recent support. Granted the FB group is only one element but it is a protected and private group which includes our local MP. If those becoming members of this (FB) group feel that they are at risk then maybe they shouldn't have joined the group? I would still welcome to know what support some of those 345 members offer publicly - especially using their own names on forums. My point is that whilst I have questioned the presentation of alleged evidence on these comment pages I have shown genuine support for the cause.[/p][/quote]MARK YOU HAVE LOST ME WHERE IS THE LIST OF MEMBERS SHOWN YOU KNOW MORE THAN ME[/p][/quote]Maybe Simon will provide you with the list of those supporters (active or otherwise) that have passed the entrance criteria to be accepted into the Cavetown Council facebook group. If Simon isn't prepared then I could provide the links to the other two admins. MarkPullen

10:51pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group?
I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support.

https://www.facebook





.com/ted.waddington.





3
https://www.facebook





.com/christine.mcber





ry.9
https://www.facebook





.com/wayne.wellwood

Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads.

Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website.

4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain!

Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign?

By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-)
MARK I DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE GOING THE RIGHT WAY TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS SITE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ,AND I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE PLACED NAMES ON THIS SITE YOU SAY ARE MEMBERS OF CAVETOWN ,I DO NOT KNOW THEM AND DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THEM FROM . BUT LETS SUPPOSE THEY ARE HOW WILL THEY FEEL YOU SAYING THEY ARE AND WHAT IF THEIR LIVELIHOOD IS NOW THREATENED ,YOU YOUR SELF WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VOLUNTARY WORK ,YOU HAVE NOT ACTED IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY .
I'm not sure how their livelihood can be threatened when they are visible to non-members on the FB Cavetown group!

Simon has already counted me out of being eligible to be a member due to certain criteria and I was curious as to how those selected at random had earned their place.

4 new members (supporters) in two months isn't exactly a glowing example of people offering recent support. Granted the FB group is only one element but it is a protected and private group which includes our local MP.

If those becoming members of this (FB) group feel that they are at risk then maybe they shouldn't have joined the group?

I would still welcome to know what support some of those 345 members offer publicly - especially using their own names on forums.

My point is that whilst I have questioned the presentation of alleged evidence on these comment pages I have shown genuine support for the cause.
MARK YOU HAVE LOST ME WHERE IS THE LIST OF MEMBERS SHOWN YOU KNOW MORE THAN ME
Maybe Simon will provide you with the list of those supporters (active or otherwise) that have passed the entrance criteria to be accepted into the Cavetown Council facebook group.

If Simon isn't prepared then I could provide the links to the other two admins.
are you saying that Simon?? gave you a list of members?
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: Can any of the admins for the Cavetown Council FB group provide evidence on what the following members have done to prove their membership of the private group? I'm interesting to see evidence that they have publicly shown support. https://www.facebook .com/ted.waddington. 3 https://www.facebook .com/christine.mcber ry.9 https://www.facebook .com/wayne.wellwood Just a random selection but I'm not sure what name they post under on these threads. Maybe they are some of the parishioners that were evicted, or have voiced support at public events, or helped gather the information on the website. 4 new members in the last two months (and one of those lives on the Isle of Wight) - they're not exactly flocking to the door to become supporters in light of the more recent evidence being put into the public domain! Maybe you need to consider relaxing your stringent entry exam if you want people to support the campaign? By the way - If not liking Cllr Dave is a reason for non-acceptance to the Cavetown Gangettes then I'n no chance whatsoever! Though I note that he doesn't partake in social networking but then maybe you have to be social to do so! ;-)[/p][/quote]MARK I DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE GOING THE RIGHT WAY TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS SITE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ,AND I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE PLACED NAMES ON THIS SITE YOU SAY ARE MEMBERS OF CAVETOWN ,I DO NOT KNOW THEM AND DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THEM FROM . BUT LETS SUPPOSE THEY ARE HOW WILL THEY FEEL YOU SAYING THEY ARE AND WHAT IF THEIR LIVELIHOOD IS NOW THREATENED ,YOU YOUR SELF WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR VOLUNTARY WORK ,YOU HAVE NOT ACTED IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY .[/p][/quote]I'm not sure how their livelihood can be threatened when they are visible to non-members on the FB Cavetown group! Simon has already counted me out of being eligible to be a member due to certain criteria and I was curious as to how those selected at random had earned their place. 4 new members (supporters) in two months isn't exactly a glowing example of people offering recent support. Granted the FB group is only one element but it is a protected and private group which includes our local MP. If those becoming members of this (FB) group feel that they are at risk then maybe they shouldn't have joined the group? I would still welcome to know what support some of those 345 members offer publicly - especially using their own names on forums. My point is that whilst I have questioned the presentation of alleged evidence on these comment pages I have shown genuine support for the cause.[/p][/quote]MARK YOU HAVE LOST ME WHERE IS THE LIST OF MEMBERS SHOWN YOU KNOW MORE THAN ME[/p][/quote]Maybe Simon will provide you with the list of those supporters (active or otherwise) that have passed the entrance criteria to be accepted into the Cavetown Council facebook group. If Simon isn't prepared then I could provide the links to the other two admins.[/p][/quote]are you saying that Simon?? gave you a list of members? Ian-Holt Roberts

11:00pm Fri 20 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Ian-Holt Roberts

Simon is the only admin for the FB group posting actively on this thread and it looks like it's his decision to refuse my membership request.

I'm sure he'll provide you with the names of other cavetown supporters if you meet his self imposed criteria.
Ian-Holt Roberts Simon is the only admin for the FB group posting actively on this thread and it looks like it's his decision to refuse my membership request. I'm sure he'll provide you with the names of other cavetown supporters if you meet his self imposed criteria. MarkPullen

1:39am Sat 21 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Ok Mr Pullen,
Thanks for the update on the work of your group of Watchers of the Watchers.

Now back to information relevant to the issue in the article.

Here is a Condensed History of Keighley Town Council The Rise of Precept

2007/08
Increase 14.1 %
Revenue £294,700
Reason: To Provide Better Services

2008/09
Increase 15.0%
Revenue £341,500
Reason: To Provide Better Services

2009/10
Increase 8.8%
Revenue £371,552
Reason: To Maintain the Level Services

2010/11
Increase 3.4%
Revenue £386,250
Reason: £10,000 Required for By Election

2011/12
Increase 0.0%
Revenue £392,750
Reason: Cash Allocated for the Councils Financial Advisor Slashed

2012/13.
Increase 72.6%
Revenue £682,351
Reason: Funds Required for the Civic Centre.

Anything over a 47% increase in this years Precept will generate the Council in excess of £1 Million Pounds out of the Pockets of the Electorate.

In the Only Year in which there was no increase in the Precept, The main point of concern was
"Coun Brian Hudson opened the debate, stating that it had never previously taken so long for the town council to arrange a vote on its budget.
He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”.
He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre."

Wise words from Councillor Hudson indeed.

Obviously not much needs to be said by me on these figures.
Perhaps Mayor Walker mistakenly read her Notes as CC standing for Cavetown Council. It is quite clear she means Civic Centre.

So what is the "Keighley ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for what could be a second consecutive record-breaking tax hike."?

Could it be to achieve a seven digit figure?

£1 Million Pounds out of the incomes of local people.
£1 Million Pounds out of the local economy.

Will they have the audacity to propose this?
Will Keighley sit back and allow this?
Let's hope the answer is no on both counts.

Tick Tock
Ok Mr Pullen, Thanks for the update on the work of your group of Watchers of the Watchers. Now back to information relevant to the issue in the article. Here is a Condensed History of Keighley Town Council The Rise of Precept 2007/08 Increase 14.1 % Revenue £294,700 Reason: To Provide Better Services 2008/09 Increase 15.0% Revenue £341,500 Reason: To Provide Better Services 2009/10 Increase 8.8% Revenue £371,552 Reason: To Maintain the Level Services 2010/11 Increase 3.4% Revenue £386,250 Reason: £10,000 Required for By Election 2011/12 Increase 0.0% Revenue £392,750 Reason: Cash Allocated for the Councils Financial Advisor Slashed 2012/13. Increase 72.6% Revenue £682,351 Reason: Funds Required for the Civic Centre. Anything over a 47% increase in this years Precept will generate the Council in excess of £1 Million Pounds out of the Pockets of the Electorate. In the Only Year in which there was no increase in the Precept, The main point of concern was "Coun Brian Hudson opened the debate, stating that it had never previously taken so long for the town council to arrange a vote on its budget. He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”. He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre." Wise words from Councillor Hudson indeed. Obviously not much needs to be said by me on these figures. Perhaps Mayor Walker mistakenly read her Notes as CC standing for Cavetown Council. It is quite clear she means Civic Centre. So what is the "Keighley ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for what could be a second consecutive record-breaking tax hike."? Could it be to achieve a seven digit figure? £1 Million Pounds out of the incomes of local people. £1 Million Pounds out of the local economy. Will they have the audacity to propose this? Will Keighley sit back and allow this? Let's hope the answer is no on both counts. Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead

2:14am Sat 21 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

They will attempt to rush the approval of the Precept through as early as possible in February hence the lack of agendas disclosed on the website, or Full Council Meeting Scheduled for January.
They are well aware that once the Local Audit & Accountability Bill becomes Law they will be bound by the Council tax referendum restrictions if they exceed a predetermined cap level.
This won't bother them at all if they manage to sneak through a huge increase this year to reach the magic 7 digit figure....
Both the Report Stage and Third Reading of the Bill were completed on the 17/12/13.
Only The consideration of the Amendments and then Royal Assent remaining.
Will it become Law in time
Will the councillors vote to approve a huge increase to waste £1 million + a year ad infinitum of Peoples Money?
Remember for the 5 years preceeding this one they were costing less than £400,000 a year.

Tick Tock is sounding very loud on this one!
They will attempt to rush the approval of the Precept through as early as possible in February hence the lack of agendas disclosed on the website, or Full Council Meeting Scheduled for January. They are well aware that once the Local Audit & Accountability Bill becomes Law they will be bound by the Council tax referendum restrictions if they exceed a predetermined cap level. This won't bother them at all if they manage to sneak through a huge increase this year to reach the magic 7 digit figure.... Both the Report Stage and Third Reading of the Bill were completed on the 17/12/13. Only The consideration of the Amendments and then Royal Assent remaining. Will it become Law in time Will the councillors vote to approve a huge increase to waste £1 million + a year ad infinitum of Peoples Money? Remember for the 5 years preceeding this one they were costing less than £400,000 a year. Tick Tock is sounding very loud on this one! Always a 708 Skinhead

7:26am Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
They will attempt to rush the approval of the Precept through as early as possible in February hence the lack of agendas disclosed on the website, or Full Council Meeting Scheduled for January.
They are well aware that once the Local Audit & Accountability Bill becomes Law they will be bound by the Council tax referendum restrictions if they exceed a predetermined cap level.
This won't bother them at all if they manage to sneak through a huge increase this year to reach the magic 7 digit figure....
Both the Report Stage and Third Reading of the Bill were completed on the 17/12/13.
Only The consideration of the Amendments and then Royal Assent remaining.
Will it become Law in time
Will the councillors vote to approve a huge increase to waste £1 million + a year ad infinitum of Peoples Money?
Remember for the 5 years preceeding this one they were costing less than £400,000 a year.

Tick Tock is sounding very loud on this one!
And recall again the words from Cllr Tony Wright from the 2013 Spring (Pravda) parish mag.

“There is every possibility that, by next year, central government will have capped the level of precept increases parish and town councils can make (as they have already done to the district councils).“So we couldn’t take it step by step and phase an increase over three or four years – we had been forced into a ‘now or never’ situation,” said the Events Committee chairman and twice former Mayor.

Will KTC do the same again this time? This dysfunctional council has only kept going because it has been able to make parishioners pay.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: They will attempt to rush the approval of the Precept through as early as possible in February hence the lack of agendas disclosed on the website, or Full Council Meeting Scheduled for January. They are well aware that once the Local Audit & Accountability Bill becomes Law they will be bound by the Council tax referendum restrictions if they exceed a predetermined cap level. This won't bother them at all if they manage to sneak through a huge increase this year to reach the magic 7 digit figure.... Both the Report Stage and Third Reading of the Bill were completed on the 17/12/13. Only The consideration of the Amendments and then Royal Assent remaining. Will it become Law in time Will the councillors vote to approve a huge increase to waste £1 million + a year ad infinitum of Peoples Money? Remember for the 5 years preceeding this one they were costing less than £400,000 a year. Tick Tock is sounding very loud on this one![/p][/quote]And recall again the words from Cllr Tony Wright from the 2013 Spring (Pravda) parish mag. “There is every possibility that, by next year, central government will have capped the level of precept increases parish and town councils can make (as they have already done to the district councils).“So we couldn’t take it step by step and phase an increase over three or four years – we had been forced into a ‘now or never’ situation,” said the Events Committee chairman and twice former Mayor. Will KTC do the same again this time? This dysfunctional council has only kept going because it has been able to make parishioners pay. Graham Forsyth

8:56am Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Sally walker is it not time you commented on the allegations recently identified by an x tenant and one in participator ?.that one is the sexual abuse of a lady by a town councilor ,the allegations then inform us that another council member (also named ) INTERVENED on behalf of the sexual abuser pleading that no action be taken ,the result was that a letter of apology was given to the victim ,the allegation goes on to say that the mayor and clerk were aware of this .Now then Sally Walker why not inform the people of Keighley why no action as been taken if this councilor repeats this act of abuse again on a lady or god forbid a child then you and the rest of this council will have to shoulder the blame
Sally walker is it not time you commented on the allegations recently identified by an x tenant and one in participator ?.that one is the sexual abuse of a lady by a town councilor ,the allegations then inform us that another council member (also named ) INTERVENED on behalf of the sexual abuser pleading that no action be taken ,the result was that a letter of apology was given to the victim ,the allegation goes on to say that the mayor and clerk were aware of this .Now then Sally Walker why not inform the people of Keighley why no action as been taken if this councilor repeats this act of abuse again on a lady or god forbid a child then you and the rest of this council will have to shoulder the blame Ian-Holt Roberts

8:58am Sat 21 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Ok Mr Pullen,
Thanks for the update on the work of your group of Watchers of the Watchers.

Now back to information relevant to the issue in the article.

Here is a Condensed History of Keighley Town Council The Rise of Precept

2007/08
Increase 14.1 %
Revenue £294,700
Reason: To Provide Better Services

2008/09
Increase 15.0%
Revenue £341,500
Reason: To Provide Better Services

2009/10
Increase 8.8%
Revenue £371,552
Reason: To Maintain the Level Services

2010/11
Increase 3.4%
Revenue £386,250
Reason: £10,000 Required for By Election

2011/12
Increase 0.0%
Revenue £392,750
Reason: Cash Allocated for the Councils Financial Advisor Slashed

2012/13.
Increase 72.6%
Revenue £682,351
Reason: Funds Required for the Civic Centre.

Anything over a 47% increase in this years Precept will generate the Council in excess of £1 Million Pounds out of the Pockets of the Electorate.

In the Only Year in which there was no increase in the Precept, The main point of concern was
"Coun Brian Hudson opened the debate, stating that it had never previously taken so long for the town council to arrange a vote on its budget.
He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”.
He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre."

Wise words from Councillor Hudson indeed.

Obviously not much needs to be said by me on these figures.
Perhaps Mayor Walker mistakenly read her Notes as CC standing for Cavetown Council. It is quite clear she means Civic Centre.

So what is the "Keighley ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for what could be a second consecutive record-breaking tax hike."?

Could it be to achieve a seven digit figure?

£1 Million Pounds out of the incomes of local people.
£1 Million Pounds out of the local economy.

Will they have the audacity to propose this?
Will Keighley sit back and allow this?
Let's hope the answer is no on both counts.

Tick Tock
Nothing new from Simon then - still prepared to refuse a supporter of the campaign relating to the alleged mismanagement of KTC access to the additional information, including email exchanges with councillors, on FB.

Again he has rejected (or authorised the rejection) of my genuine application as he feels threatened?

Surely if Cavetown Council are operating a just and appropriate campaign he would have no reason to refuse membership?

Are those other members (I'm happy to share their links in case Ian-Holt Roberts is still being kept in the dark) party to the negativity?

One thing is for sure, when this campaign is over and KTC have received whatever reprimand is seen appropriate, Simon and other "gang" members/supporters will have operated their campaign with a veil of dirty tricks themselves.

Maybe it's appropriate that Simon (self appointed overseer/leader) does ensure my application is rejected - I'm sure there's plenty of evidence that this former resident has failed to even attempt to be civilised during his vendetta.

This is meant to be about the alleged mismanagement of KTC - but now we are bearing witness to individuals who have shown that they are prepared to act however necessary to achieve their goal.

Is this noble?
Is this appropriate?

I can only assume that the means to achieve the outcome DO make a difference.

Some "gang" members seem to be willing to take whatever steps necessary to destroy KTC and when the potential chasm remains they will crawl back into their caves.

Bring on the "pompous" comments.
Bring on the negatitivy.
Prove to me and others that you don't even have the backbone or ability to turn the other cheek.

Who watches the watchers
I am Simon, Cavetown Gatekeeper
Whiter than white
Just saying
Tik-tok
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Ok Mr Pullen, Thanks for the update on the work of your group of Watchers of the Watchers. Now back to information relevant to the issue in the article. Here is a Condensed History of Keighley Town Council The Rise of Precept 2007/08 Increase 14.1 % Revenue £294,700 Reason: To Provide Better Services 2008/09 Increase 15.0% Revenue £341,500 Reason: To Provide Better Services 2009/10 Increase 8.8% Revenue £371,552 Reason: To Maintain the Level Services 2010/11 Increase 3.4% Revenue £386,250 Reason: £10,000 Required for By Election 2011/12 Increase 0.0% Revenue £392,750 Reason: Cash Allocated for the Councils Financial Advisor Slashed 2012/13. Increase 72.6% Revenue £682,351 Reason: Funds Required for the Civic Centre. Anything over a 47% increase in this years Precept will generate the Council in excess of £1 Million Pounds out of the Pockets of the Electorate. In the Only Year in which there was no increase in the Precept, The main point of concern was "Coun Brian Hudson opened the debate, stating that it had never previously taken so long for the town council to arrange a vote on its budget. He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”. He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre." Wise words from Councillor Hudson indeed. Obviously not much needs to be said by me on these figures. Perhaps Mayor Walker mistakenly read her Notes as CC standing for Cavetown Council. It is quite clear she means Civic Centre. So what is the "Keighley ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for what could be a second consecutive record-breaking tax hike."? Could it be to achieve a seven digit figure? £1 Million Pounds out of the incomes of local people. £1 Million Pounds out of the local economy. Will they have the audacity to propose this? Will Keighley sit back and allow this? Let's hope the answer is no on both counts. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Nothing new from Simon then - still prepared to refuse a supporter of the campaign relating to the alleged mismanagement of KTC access to the additional information, including email exchanges with councillors, on FB. Again he has rejected (or authorised the rejection) of my genuine application as he feels threatened? Surely if Cavetown Council are operating a just and appropriate campaign he would have no reason to refuse membership? Are those other members (I'm happy to share their links in case Ian-Holt Roberts is still being kept in the dark) party to the negativity? One thing is for sure, when this campaign is over and KTC have received whatever reprimand is seen appropriate, Simon and other "gang" members/supporters will have operated their campaign with a veil of dirty tricks themselves. Maybe it's appropriate that Simon (self appointed overseer/leader) does ensure my application is rejected - I'm sure there's plenty of evidence that this former resident has failed to even attempt to be civilised during his vendetta. This is meant to be about the alleged mismanagement of KTC - but now we are bearing witness to individuals who have shown that they are prepared to act however necessary to achieve their goal. Is this noble? Is this appropriate? I can only assume that the means to achieve the outcome DO make a difference. Some "gang" members seem to be willing to take whatever steps necessary to destroy KTC and when the potential chasm remains they will crawl back into their caves. Bring on the "pompous" comments. Bring on the negatitivy. Prove to me and others that you don't even have the backbone or ability to turn the other cheek. Who watches the watchers I am Simon, Cavetown Gatekeeper Whiter than white Just saying Tik-tok MarkPullen

9:04am Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Cllr mayor Sally Walker, is Cavetown responsible for the following.


MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FINANCE SUB COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE 2010
The SPC talked about the events currently put on at Nottingham and how similar events could be put on in the Museum using the catering facilities within the building. This would include ‘weird weddings’ and of course the involvement of the schools. Four rooms opposite the cells could be used to operate separate seminars for schoolchildren, exhibitions and history lessons. The companies had done their research and suggested that they will net some £20,000 minimum. A comparison showed that Ripponden which only has 3 cells have 10,000 visitors a year with an average spend of £5 per head giving a yearly figure of some £50,000. A franchise fee could be somewhere in the region of £70,000 to £80,000.

Cllr S Walker, what happened to the `somewhere in the region of £70,000 to £80,000`? Failing to achieve this figures had nothing to do with Cavetown.

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF KEIGHLEY TOWN COUNCIL WEDNESDAY 7 JULY 2010
The Special Projects Co-ordinator advised that the franchise fees will cover the cost of the interest on the loan and an excess of a minimum of £71,000 per annum which can be used for capital repayment, reinvestment, investment etc. at the Council’s pleasure. These fees have already been agreed with our partners in principle. A 10% profit share will also be received.

Cllr S Walker, what happened to the franchise fees? Failing to achieve the franchise fees had nothing to do with Cavetown.


Keighley News Thursday 22nd July 2010 .Council is to borrow £1.1m for police site
“Mr Parry explained the venture should be self-financing, with income provided by the businesses and social groups which would use the building.
He said the contracts with these organisations were being negotiated, so their names could not yet be revealed.
He stressed the old police station’s purchase would not require an increase in the town council’s precept and would lead to the creation of at least 30 jobs.
He said the cost of the project had been calculated by assuming a minimum potential income and maximum possible expenditure. He said even these estimates showed the proposals would be profitable.”

Cllr S Walker, what happened to the `self-financing`, and the `not require an increase in the town council’s precept`, and the `proposals would be profitable.`? Do you feel like writing another letter to explain what happened to all of this? It is clear this also had nothing to do with Cavetown as the business plan was drawn up in 2010, at leas two years into the economic recession, and of course, the business plan would have taken the ongoing recession into consideration , would it not? So that is something else which cannot be blamed on Cavetown.


Bradford Telegraph & Argus Thursday 4th August 2011. Transformation of court buildings into visitor centre to be done by Christmas
“Mr Parry said: “It is a great asset for Keighley. We will have the only visitor centre that facilitates the study of forensic science in the country. We will attract schools and colleges from all over the country and bring the benefit to the people of Keighley.”

Cllr S Walker, what happened to the visiting schools and colleges? In your next letter to the K.N can you explain how a financial liability is a great asset to the town? I am sure some budding entrepreneur will want to show the bank they wish to attain a loan from how a financial liability is a great asset. No blame there to place on Cavetown either.


Keighley News Friday 7th October 2011. Anger at deal for old police station
“Town council special projects officer Alan Parry said the scheme was an asset for Keighley and had helped the town council secure Heritage Lottery Funding to restore other historic buildings.

Cllr S Walker, do you recall the following in relation to the Heritage Lottery Funding.

K.N. Thursday 4th April 2013.Council’s statements made in good faith
“We are now informed ‘critical’ in lottery terms describes a building of particular note, but not crucial to the bid, although as a critical project does attract funding in its own right, it seems an unfortunate term to use and led the councillors to believe, with justification, the town council’s quite separate decision to purchase the building would considerably strengthen the bid for THI funding.
The town council’s statements were made in good faith and did not at any time seek to deceive. However, it appears the council was mistaken in its interpretation of the term ‘critical’, and for that I apologise, and I am genuinely sorry this impression has arisen. “
The council got that wrong as well didn't it Cllr S Walker, and it had nothing to do with Cavetown, the council managed to do that all by itself.

Keighley News Thursday 13th October 2011.£1M CENTRE IS ‘NOT WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY’
“Mr Parry stressed that the project for the former North Street police station property was on a sound financial footing at last week’s town council meeting.
“I know there are people that have been expressing their views in the papers, but the determination to stick to the principles of a commercial partnership enterprise is steadfast,” he said.
“Those partners are just as excited as we are about this scheme. I cannot do anything about people who go to the papers and who don’t know how this business plan is constructed.

Cllr S Walker, how about another of your letters to the K.N to explain to those KTC stung with a 72.6% precept hike to pay for loss making civic centre how this business plan is constructed, because a £252,565 deficit is not what parishioners were expecting from a self-financing civic centre, even in a `worse case scenario`. And notice the year Cllr S Walker, 2011, Cavetown did not exist then, yet already there were critics of the civic centre. Would that require a separate letter to explain these pre Cavetown critics, or will you include it as part of the letter explaining the business plan?



MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MANAGEMENT & STAFFING COMMITTEE MONDAY 19 MARCH 2012
Update on Partners
Mr Parry explained that the partners involved in the Catering, Housing, Debt Management and Security functions have now signed contracts for their involvement in the Centre. Mr Parry is hopeful that the remaining partners will be fully signed up within the next week, when details of these companies will be made public.

Cllr S Walker, we could do with yet another letter to explain where the contracts went to because your town clerk stated there are no contracts. And the investigative report into Financial and Staffing Irregularities made comment on what not been accomplished regarding the civic centre.

That report can be read here;
https://docs.google.
com/file/d/0ByE4D40i
mmo-Tkdmb3VkdURKaEk/
edit?pli=1


So who is to blame for the deficit making civic centre, those who thought the idea was spiffing, or those who have pointed out it's failings and the council's incompetence? Tick Tock
Cllr mayor Sally Walker, is Cavetown responsible for the following. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FINANCE SUB COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE 2010 The SPC talked about the events currently put on at Nottingham and how similar events could be put on in the Museum using the catering facilities within the building. This would include ‘weird weddings’ and of course the involvement of the schools. Four rooms opposite the cells could be used to operate separate seminars for schoolchildren, exhibitions and history lessons. The companies had done their research and suggested that they will net some £20,000 minimum. A comparison showed that Ripponden which only has 3 cells have 10,000 visitors a year with an average spend of £5 per head giving a yearly figure of some £50,000. A franchise fee could be somewhere in the region of £70,000 to £80,000. Cllr S Walker, what happened to the `somewhere in the region of £70,000 to £80,000`? Failing to achieve this figures had nothing to do with Cavetown. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF KEIGHLEY TOWN COUNCIL WEDNESDAY 7 JULY 2010 The Special Projects Co-ordinator advised that the franchise fees will cover the cost of the interest on the loan and an excess of a minimum of £71,000 per annum which can be used for capital repayment, reinvestment, investment etc. at the Council’s pleasure. These fees have already been agreed with our partners in principle. A 10% profit share will also be received. Cllr S Walker, what happened to the franchise fees? Failing to achieve the franchise fees had nothing to do with Cavetown. Keighley News Thursday 22nd July 2010 .Council is to borrow £1.1m for police site “Mr Parry explained the venture should be self-financing, with income provided by the businesses and social groups which would use the building. He said the contracts with these organisations were being negotiated, so their names could not yet be revealed. He stressed the old police station’s purchase would not require an increase in the town council’s precept and would lead to the creation of at least 30 jobs. He said the cost of the project had been calculated by assuming a minimum potential income and maximum possible expenditure. He said even these estimates showed the proposals would be profitable.” Cllr S Walker, what happened to the `self-financing`, and the `not require an increase in the town council’s precept`, and the `proposals would be profitable.`? Do you feel like writing another letter to explain what happened to all of this? It is clear this also had nothing to do with Cavetown as the business plan was drawn up in 2010, at leas two years into the economic recession, and of course, the business plan would have taken the ongoing recession into consideration , would it not? So that is something else which cannot be blamed on Cavetown. Bradford Telegraph & Argus Thursday 4th August 2011. Transformation of court buildings into visitor centre to be done by Christmas “Mr Parry said: “It is a great asset for Keighley. We will have the only visitor centre that facilitates the study of forensic science in the country. We will attract schools and colleges from all over the country and bring the benefit to the people of Keighley.” Cllr S Walker, what happened to the visiting schools and colleges? In your next letter to the K.N can you explain how a financial liability is a great asset to the town? I am sure some budding entrepreneur will want to show the bank they wish to attain a loan from how a financial liability is a great asset. No blame there to place on Cavetown either. Keighley News Friday 7th October 2011. Anger at deal for old police station “Town council special projects officer Alan Parry said the scheme was an asset for Keighley and had helped the town council secure Heritage Lottery Funding to restore other historic buildings. Cllr S Walker, do you recall the following in relation to the Heritage Lottery Funding. K.N. Thursday 4th April 2013.Council’s statements made in good faith “We are now informed ‘critical’ in lottery terms describes a building of particular note, but not crucial to the bid, although as a critical project does attract funding in its own right, it seems an unfortunate term to use and led the councillors to believe, with justification, the town council’s quite separate decision to purchase the building would considerably strengthen the bid for THI funding. The town council’s statements were made in good faith and did not at any time seek to deceive. However, it appears the council was mistaken in its interpretation of the term ‘critical’, and for that I apologise, and I am genuinely sorry this impression has arisen. “ The council got that wrong as well didn't it Cllr S Walker, and it had nothing to do with Cavetown, the council managed to do that all by itself. Keighley News Thursday 13th October 2011.£1M CENTRE IS ‘NOT WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY’ “Mr Parry stressed that the project for the former North Street police station property was on a sound financial footing at last week’s town council meeting. “I know there are people that have been expressing their views in the papers, but the determination to stick to the principles of a commercial partnership enterprise is steadfast,” he said. “Those partners are just as excited as we are about this scheme. I cannot do anything about people who go to the papers and who don’t know how this business plan is constructed. Cllr S Walker, how about another of your letters to the K.N to explain to those KTC stung with a 72.6% precept hike to pay for loss making civic centre how this business plan is constructed, because a £252,565 deficit is not what parishioners were expecting from a self-financing civic centre, even in a `worse case scenario`. And notice the year Cllr S Walker, 2011, Cavetown did not exist then, yet already there were critics of the civic centre. Would that require a separate letter to explain these pre Cavetown critics, or will you include it as part of the letter explaining the business plan? MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MANAGEMENT & STAFFING COMMITTEE MONDAY 19 MARCH 2012 Update on Partners Mr Parry explained that the partners involved in the Catering, Housing, Debt Management and Security functions have now signed contracts for their involvement in the Centre. Mr Parry is hopeful that the remaining partners will be fully signed up within the next week, when details of these companies will be made public. Cllr S Walker, we could do with yet another letter to explain where the contracts went to because your town clerk stated there are no contracts. And the investigative report into Financial and Staffing Irregularities made comment on what not been accomplished regarding the civic centre. That report can be read here; https://docs.google. com/file/d/0ByE4D40i mmo-Tkdmb3VkdURKaEk/ edit?pli=1 So who is to blame for the deficit making civic centre, those who thought the idea was spiffing, or those who have pointed out it's failings and the council's incompetence? Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

9:11am Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Ok Mr Pullen,
Thanks for the update on the work of your group of Watchers of the Watchers.

Now back to information relevant to the issue in the article.

Here is a Condensed History of Keighley Town Council The Rise of Precept

2007/08
Increase 14.1 %
Revenue £294,700
Reason: To Provide Better Services

2008/09
Increase 15.0%
Revenue £341,500
Reason: To Provide Better Services

2009/10
Increase 8.8%
Revenue £371,552
Reason: To Maintain the Level Services

2010/11
Increase 3.4%
Revenue £386,250
Reason: £10,000 Required for By Election

2011/12
Increase 0.0%
Revenue £392,750
Reason: Cash Allocated for the Councils Financial Advisor Slashed

2012/13.
Increase 72.6%
Revenue £682,351
Reason: Funds Required for the Civic Centre.

Anything over a 47% increase in this years Precept will generate the Council in excess of £1 Million Pounds out of the Pockets of the Electorate.

In the Only Year in which there was no increase in the Precept, The main point of concern was
"Coun Brian Hudson opened the debate, stating that it had never previously taken so long for the town council to arrange a vote on its budget.
He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”.
He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre."

Wise words from Councillor Hudson indeed.

Obviously not much needs to be said by me on these figures.
Perhaps Mayor Walker mistakenly read her Notes as CC standing for Cavetown Council. It is quite clear she means Civic Centre.

So what is the "Keighley ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for what could be a second consecutive record-breaking tax hike."?

Could it be to achieve a seven digit figure?

£1 Million Pounds out of the incomes of local people.
£1 Million Pounds out of the local economy.

Will they have the audacity to propose this?
Will Keighley sit back and allow this?
Let's hope the answer is no on both counts.

Tick Tock
Nothing new from Simon then - still prepared to refuse a supporter of the campaign relating to the alleged mismanagement of KTC access to the additional information, including email exchanges with councillors, on FB.

Again he has rejected (or authorised the rejection) of my genuine application as he feels threatened?

Surely if Cavetown Council are operating a just and appropriate campaign he would have no reason to refuse membership?

Are those other members (I'm happy to share their links in case Ian-Holt Roberts is still being kept in the dark) party to the negativity?

One thing is for sure, when this campaign is over and KTC have received whatever reprimand is seen appropriate, Simon and other "gang" members/supporters will have operated their campaign with a veil of dirty tricks themselves.

Maybe it's appropriate that Simon (self appointed overseer/leader) does ensure my application is rejected - I'm sure there's plenty of evidence that this former resident has failed to even attempt to be civilised during his vendetta.

This is meant to be about the alleged mismanagement of KTC - but now we are bearing witness to individuals who have shown that they are prepared to act however necessary to achieve their goal.

Is this noble?
Is this appropriate?

I can only assume that the means to achieve the outcome DO make a difference.

Some "gang" members seem to be willing to take whatever steps necessary to destroy KTC and when the potential chasm remains they will crawl back into their caves.

Bring on the "pompous" comments.
Bring on the negatitivy.
Prove to me and others that you don't even have the backbone or ability to turn the other cheek.

Who watches the watchers
I am Simon, Cavetown Gatekeeper
Whiter than white
Just saying
Tik-tok
I HAVE JUST VOICED MY OPINION ON OUR SITE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON HAVING READ THIS I AM PLEASED I MADE THAT DECISION.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Ok Mr Pullen, Thanks for the update on the work of your group of Watchers of the Watchers. Now back to information relevant to the issue in the article. Here is a Condensed History of Keighley Town Council The Rise of Precept 2007/08 Increase 14.1 % Revenue £294,700 Reason: To Provide Better Services 2008/09 Increase 15.0% Revenue £341,500 Reason: To Provide Better Services 2009/10 Increase 8.8% Revenue £371,552 Reason: To Maintain the Level Services 2010/11 Increase 3.4% Revenue £386,250 Reason: £10,000 Required for By Election 2011/12 Increase 0.0% Revenue £392,750 Reason: Cash Allocated for the Councils Financial Advisor Slashed 2012/13. Increase 72.6% Revenue £682,351 Reason: Funds Required for the Civic Centre. Anything over a 47% increase in this years Precept will generate the Council in excess of £1 Million Pounds out of the Pockets of the Electorate. In the Only Year in which there was no increase in the Precept, The main point of concern was "Coun Brian Hudson opened the debate, stating that it had never previously taken so long for the town council to arrange a vote on its budget. He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”. He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre." Wise words from Councillor Hudson indeed. Obviously not much needs to be said by me on these figures. Perhaps Mayor Walker mistakenly read her Notes as CC standing for Cavetown Council. It is quite clear she means Civic Centre. So what is the "Keighley ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for what could be a second consecutive record-breaking tax hike."? Could it be to achieve a seven digit figure? £1 Million Pounds out of the incomes of local people. £1 Million Pounds out of the local economy. Will they have the audacity to propose this? Will Keighley sit back and allow this? Let's hope the answer is no on both counts. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Nothing new from Simon then - still prepared to refuse a supporter of the campaign relating to the alleged mismanagement of KTC access to the additional information, including email exchanges with councillors, on FB. Again he has rejected (or authorised the rejection) of my genuine application as he feels threatened? Surely if Cavetown Council are operating a just and appropriate campaign he would have no reason to refuse membership? Are those other members (I'm happy to share their links in case Ian-Holt Roberts is still being kept in the dark) party to the negativity? One thing is for sure, when this campaign is over and KTC have received whatever reprimand is seen appropriate, Simon and other "gang" members/supporters will have operated their campaign with a veil of dirty tricks themselves. Maybe it's appropriate that Simon (self appointed overseer/leader) does ensure my application is rejected - I'm sure there's plenty of evidence that this former resident has failed to even attempt to be civilised during his vendetta. This is meant to be about the alleged mismanagement of KTC - but now we are bearing witness to individuals who have shown that they are prepared to act however necessary to achieve their goal. Is this noble? Is this appropriate? I can only assume that the means to achieve the outcome DO make a difference. Some "gang" members seem to be willing to take whatever steps necessary to destroy KTC and when the potential chasm remains they will crawl back into their caves. Bring on the "pompous" comments. Bring on the negatitivy. Prove to me and others that you don't even have the backbone or ability to turn the other cheek. Who watches the watchers I am Simon, Cavetown Gatekeeper Whiter than white Just saying Tik-tok[/p][/quote]I HAVE JUST VOICED MY OPINION ON OUR SITE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON HAVING READ THIS I AM PLEASED I MADE THAT DECISION. Ian-Holt Roberts

9:19am Sat 21 Dec 13

Katiery says...

To be honest, Graham Forsyth , it seems as if Mr Alan Parry also has a lot of questions to answer. He was obviously being paid to ensure that the Civic Centre attracted business franchises but he seems to have failed dramatically. He was very vocal for a while, but he's very silent now has he been sacked?
To be honest, Graham Forsyth , it seems as if Mr Alan Parry also has a lot of questions to answer. He was obviously being paid to ensure that the Civic Centre attracted business franchises but he seems to have failed dramatically. He was very vocal for a while, but he's very silent now has he been sacked? Katiery

10:04am Sat 21 Dec 13

Gobbag Vooar says...

Katiery wrote:
So we have a body of elected representatives, some of whom seem to feel that abuse and threats are the way to deal with enquiries and some of whom are so intimidated by these people that they do absolutely nothing because they are threatened, but no form of redress for these actions? Nowhere to make a complaint, no one to oversee this behavior?

I undertsand that the Civic Centre is loosing money rapidly. Why can't the Town Council just admit this, admit that they were wrong, rather than blaming legitimate enquiries about their behavior and spending for yet another huge precept rise which no one wants to pay.

I don't often agree with Kris Hopkins but in this case he is correct in his statement. Wanton throwing away of public funds is a crime and one that should be controlled in whatever way possible. If that way is by raising issues in public then that is what must be done. The Town Council have a clerk, part of her job is to answer public enquiries, as is the job of the councillors. If it costs so much to supply information then maybe we really do need a rethink about what point there is in having a Town Council at all.

When barely hidden personal jibes are the only response from whomever is posting for the Town Council then we are in a very sorry mess that needs to be sorted out and fast. What the heck has anyones spelling got to do with it, or even their personal facebook pages? Pathetic and ridiculous posts having digs at people is hardly the answer. The concerns seem to be real, how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses?
Why are there no posts here from someone who knows the answer to these questions? People of Keighley will not continually accept precept rises without wanting answers as to where the money is going and why.
Those councillors past and present who voted for the purchase of this building should now be brought to account by the people of Keighley, their foolhardiness is now being paid for at a time when energy bills have gone through the roof, when we need food banks, and some people in desperation are turning to pay day lenders.
Blaming Cavetown is just another act of irresponsibility, but this happened before when parishioners were blamed for the cost of a by election.
Seems that when ratepayer see fit to exercise their democratic right, this lot say, do that, it will cost you.
How much longer will the townspeople let this out of control circus continue ?
Mr Hopkins, Is it not time that your communities secretary acted in the interest of Keighley, instead of leaving it to unpaid ratepayers ? Enough is Enough,
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: So we have a body of elected representatives, some of whom seem to feel that abuse and threats are the way to deal with enquiries and some of whom are so intimidated by these people that they do absolutely nothing because they are threatened, but no form of redress for these actions? Nowhere to make a complaint, no one to oversee this behavior? I undertsand that the Civic Centre is loosing money rapidly. Why can't the Town Council just admit this, admit that they were wrong, rather than blaming legitimate enquiries about their behavior and spending for yet another huge precept rise which no one wants to pay. I don't often agree with Kris Hopkins but in this case he is correct in his statement. Wanton throwing away of public funds is a crime and one that should be controlled in whatever way possible. If that way is by raising issues in public then that is what must be done. The Town Council have a clerk, part of her job is to answer public enquiries, as is the job of the councillors. If it costs so much to supply information then maybe we really do need a rethink about what point there is in having a Town Council at all. When barely hidden personal jibes are the only response from whomever is posting for the Town Council then we are in a very sorry mess that needs to be sorted out and fast. What the heck has anyones spelling got to do with it, or even their personal facebook pages? Pathetic and ridiculous posts having digs at people is hardly the answer. The concerns seem to be real, how is the Civic Centre being funded if it is loosing so much money? Why is it not up for sale to recoup some of those losses? Why are there no posts here from someone who knows the answer to these questions? People of Keighley will not continually accept precept rises without wanting answers as to where the money is going and why.[/p][/quote]Those councillors past and present who voted for the purchase of this building should now be brought to account by the people of Keighley, their foolhardiness is now being paid for at a time when energy bills have gone through the roof, when we need food banks, and some people in desperation are turning to pay day lenders. Blaming Cavetown is just another act of irresponsibility, but this happened before when parishioners were blamed for the cost of a by election. Seems that when ratepayer see fit to exercise their democratic right, this lot say, do that, it will cost you. How much longer will the townspeople let this out of control circus continue ? Mr Hopkins, Is it not time that your communities secretary acted in the interest of Keighley, instead of leaving it to unpaid ratepayers ? Enough is Enough, Gobbag Vooar

10:29am Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Katiery wrote:
To be honest, Graham Forsyth , it seems as if Mr Alan Parry also has a lot of questions to answer. He was obviously being paid to ensure that the Civic Centre attracted business franchises but he seems to have failed dramatically. He was very vocal for a while, but he's very silent now has he been sacked?
M&S Committee minutes 18 March 2013
“It was noted that upon Alan Parry’s departure from the Town Council, the Mayor and Town Clerk will deal with press releases and press liaison.”

I would assume when the investigation actually starts there will be questions asked, even from those who have now left.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: To be honest, Graham Forsyth , it seems as if Mr Alan Parry also has a lot of questions to answer. He was obviously being paid to ensure that the Civic Centre attracted business franchises but he seems to have failed dramatically. He was very vocal for a while, but he's very silent now has he been sacked?[/p][/quote]M&S Committee minutes 18 March 2013 “It was noted that upon Alan Parry’s departure from the Town Council, the Mayor and Town Clerk will deal with press releases and press liaison.” I would assume when the investigation actually starts there will be questions asked, even from those who have now left. Graham Forsyth

12:24pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Kingchaser says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
notthecivic wrote:
i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!!
That my Facebook page is open to the Public to view is a matter of choice. I could alter the settings should I prefer it not be seen. Obviously anyone who does choose to view my FB page will not only see that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the ridiculous claims that I am a member of any political groups BNP, EDL or any of the others. To suggest that I am associated with those mentioned is absurd. As an Expat living in a Country not of my Birth I am, by definition, an immigrant.
Stupid anonymous councillor.
Of course I have ensured that any visitor to my Timeline will immediately view several pieces of correspondence which I have received with include insults, abuse and threats all provided by this years incumbent, inept councillors.

I doubt the KN would allow the contents of some of these emails to be reproduced on these threads due to the vulgarity and obscenities they include, but the anonymous councillor has managed to find a way to let the public sight these words written under their real names that I had not yet considered.

No prizes for guessing which one corresponds to which nom de plume on here. But I am considering creating an online Poll for which one seems to excel in stupidity.

why not invest your time in researching ways to resolve the current fiscal nightmare instead of posting lies under a pseudonym. I have obviously caused you much embarassment councillor for you to target me so vehemently.
I look forward to doing so again.


Tick Tock
I have to say, I looked at this Facebook page out of curious it and found nothing relating to racism, BNP or EDL. Dodgy taste in music though! :-)
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: i note mr australia has not commented about his face book page looking like a edl or bnp page !!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]That my Facebook page is open to the Public to view is a matter of choice. I could alter the settings should I prefer it not be seen. Obviously anyone who does choose to view my FB page will not only see that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the ridiculous claims that I am a member of any political groups BNP, EDL or any of the others. To suggest that I am associated with those mentioned is absurd. As an Expat living in a Country not of my Birth I am, by definition, an immigrant. Stupid anonymous councillor. Of course I have ensured that any visitor to my Timeline will immediately view several pieces of correspondence which I have received with include insults, abuse and threats all provided by this years incumbent, inept councillors. I doubt the KN would allow the contents of some of these emails to be reproduced on these threads due to the vulgarity and obscenities they include, but the anonymous councillor has managed to find a way to let the public sight these words written under their real names that I had not yet considered. No prizes for guessing which one corresponds to which nom de plume on here. But I am considering creating an online Poll for which one seems to excel in stupidity. why not invest your time in researching ways to resolve the current fiscal nightmare instead of posting lies under a pseudonym. I have obviously caused you much embarassment councillor for you to target me so vehemently. I look forward to doing so again. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]I have to say, I looked at this Facebook page out of curious it and found nothing relating to racism, BNP or EDL. Dodgy taste in music though! :-) Kingchaser

12:37pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Condensed History of Keighley Town Council The Rise of Precept

How Times have changed-
2007/08
Increase 14.1 %
Revenue £294,700
The chamber agreed to levy a precept for a total of £294,700 towards the cost of running services.
The proposed budget was put forward by the chairman of the council's Finance Committee, Councillor Tony Wright.
He said most of the 14.1 per cent increase in the precept would be spent on delivering better services to Keighley residents
However, Cllr Glen Miller, one of six people who voted against the proposed precept, argued a 14.1 per cent rise was too big an increase.

2007/08
14.1% increase equated to £36 ,500

2012/13
76.6% increase equated to £289,601

Is it-
Compound Interest?
Outside Interest?
Voter Lack of interest?

Just interested.
Condensed History of Keighley Town Council The Rise of Precept How Times have changed- 2007/08 Increase 14.1 % Revenue £294,700 The chamber agreed to levy a precept for a total of £294,700 towards the cost of running services. The proposed budget was put forward by the chairman of the council's Finance Committee, Councillor Tony Wright. He said most of the 14.1 per cent increase in the precept would be spent on delivering better services to Keighley residents However, Cllr Glen Miller, one of six people who voted against the proposed precept, argued a 14.1 per cent rise was too big an increase. 2007/08 14.1% increase equated to £36 ,500 2012/13 76.6% increase equated to £289,601 Is it- Compound Interest? Outside Interest? Voter Lack of interest? Just interested. Always a 708 Skinhead

1:25pm Sat 21 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Ok Mr Pullen,
Thanks for the update on the work of your group of Watchers of the Watchers.

Now back to information relevant to the issue in the article.

Here is a Condensed History of Keighley Town Council The Rise of Precept

2007/08
Increase 14.1 %
Revenue £294,700
Reason: To Provide Better Services

2008/09
Increase 15.0%
Revenue £341,500
Reason: To Provide Better Services

2009/10
Increase 8.8%
Revenue £371,552
Reason: To Maintain the Level Services

2010/11
Increase 3.4%
Revenue £386,250
Reason: £10,000 Required for By Election

2011/12
Increase 0.0%
Revenue £392,750
Reason: Cash Allocated for the Councils Financial Advisor Slashed

2012/13.
Increase 72.6%
Revenue £682,351
Reason: Funds Required for the Civic Centre.

Anything over a 47% increase in this years Precept will generate the Council in excess of £1 Million Pounds out of the Pockets of the Electorate.

In the Only Year in which there was no increase in the Precept, The main point of concern was
"Coun Brian Hudson opened the debate, stating that it had never previously taken so long for the town council to arrange a vote on its budget.
He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”.
He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre."

Wise words from Councillor Hudson indeed.

Obviously not much needs to be said by me on these figures.
Perhaps Mayor Walker mistakenly read her Notes as CC standing for Cavetown Council. It is quite clear she means Civic Centre.

So what is the "Keighley ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for what could be a second consecutive record-breaking tax hike."?

Could it be to achieve a seven digit figure?

£1 Million Pounds out of the incomes of local people.
£1 Million Pounds out of the local economy.

Will they have the audacity to propose this?
Will Keighley sit back and allow this?
Let's hope the answer is no on both counts.

Tick Tock
Nothing new from Simon then - still prepared to refuse a supporter of the campaign relating to the alleged mismanagement of KTC access to the additional information, including email exchanges with councillors, on FB.

Again he has rejected (or authorised the rejection) of my genuine application as he feels threatened?

Surely if Cavetown Council are operating a just and appropriate campaign he would have no reason to refuse membership?

Are those other members (I'm happy to share their links in case Ian-Holt Roberts is still being kept in the dark) party to the negativity?

One thing is for sure, when this campaign is over and KTC have received whatever reprimand is seen appropriate, Simon and other "gang" members/supporters will have operated their campaign with a veil of dirty tricks themselves.

Maybe it's appropriate that Simon (self appointed overseer/leader) does ensure my application is rejected - I'm sure there's plenty of evidence that this former resident has failed to even attempt to be civilised during his vendetta.

This is meant to be about the alleged mismanagement of KTC - but now we are bearing witness to individuals who have shown that they are prepared to act however necessary to achieve their goal.

Is this noble?
Is this appropriate?

I can only assume that the means to achieve the outcome DO make a difference.

Some "gang" members seem to be willing to take whatever steps necessary to destroy KTC and when the potential chasm remains they will crawl back into their caves.

Bring on the "pompous" comments.
Bring on the negatitivy.
Prove to me and others that you don't even have the backbone or ability to turn the other cheek.

Who watches the watchers
I am Simon, Cavetown Gatekeeper
Whiter than white
Just saying
Tik-tok
I HAVE JUST VOICED MY OPINION ON OUR SITE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON HAVING READ THIS I AM PLEASED I MADE THAT DECISION.
Thank you
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Ok Mr Pullen, Thanks for the update on the work of your group of Watchers of the Watchers. Now back to information relevant to the issue in the article. Here is a Condensed History of Keighley Town Council The Rise of Precept 2007/08 Increase 14.1 % Revenue £294,700 Reason: To Provide Better Services 2008/09 Increase 15.0% Revenue £341,500 Reason: To Provide Better Services 2009/10 Increase 8.8% Revenue £371,552 Reason: To Maintain the Level Services 2010/11 Increase 3.4% Revenue £386,250 Reason: £10,000 Required for By Election 2011/12 Increase 0.0% Revenue £392,750 Reason: Cash Allocated for the Councils Financial Advisor Slashed 2012/13. Increase 72.6% Revenue £682,351 Reason: Funds Required for the Civic Centre. Anything over a 47% increase in this years Precept will generate the Council in excess of £1 Million Pounds out of the Pockets of the Electorate. In the Only Year in which there was no increase in the Precept, The main point of concern was "Coun Brian Hudson opened the debate, stating that it had never previously taken so long for the town council to arrange a vote on its budget. He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”. He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre." Wise words from Councillor Hudson indeed. Obviously not much needs to be said by me on these figures. Perhaps Mayor Walker mistakenly read her Notes as CC standing for Cavetown Council. It is quite clear she means Civic Centre. So what is the "Keighley ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for what could be a second consecutive record-breaking tax hike."? Could it be to achieve a seven digit figure? £1 Million Pounds out of the incomes of local people. £1 Million Pounds out of the local economy. Will they have the audacity to propose this? Will Keighley sit back and allow this? Let's hope the answer is no on both counts. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Nothing new from Simon then - still prepared to refuse a supporter of the campaign relating to the alleged mismanagement of KTC access to the additional information, including email exchanges with councillors, on FB. Again he has rejected (or authorised the rejection) of my genuine application as he feels threatened? Surely if Cavetown Council are operating a just and appropriate campaign he would have no reason to refuse membership? Are those other members (I'm happy to share their links in case Ian-Holt Roberts is still being kept in the dark) party to the negativity? One thing is for sure, when this campaign is over and KTC have received whatever reprimand is seen appropriate, Simon and other "gang" members/supporters will have operated their campaign with a veil of dirty tricks themselves. Maybe it's appropriate that Simon (self appointed overseer/leader) does ensure my application is rejected - I'm sure there's plenty of evidence that this former resident has failed to even attempt to be civilised during his vendetta. This is meant to be about the alleged mismanagement of KTC - but now we are bearing witness to individuals who have shown that they are prepared to act however necessary to achieve their goal. Is this noble? Is this appropriate? I can only assume that the means to achieve the outcome DO make a difference. Some "gang" members seem to be willing to take whatever steps necessary to destroy KTC and when the potential chasm remains they will crawl back into their caves. Bring on the "pompous" comments. Bring on the negatitivy. Prove to me and others that you don't even have the backbone or ability to turn the other cheek. Who watches the watchers I am Simon, Cavetown Gatekeeper Whiter than white Just saying Tik-tok[/p][/quote]I HAVE JUST VOICED MY OPINION ON OUR SITE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON HAVING READ THIS I AM PLEASED I MADE THAT DECISION.[/p][/quote]Thank you MarkPullen

1:26pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

It needed the 72.6% precept hike to help cover the civic centre deficit. How would the council have gone on if a 2% cap was in place unless the council held a referendum? How many parishioner would have agreed to a 72.6% increase? And how many would agree to another substantial increase now?

Go on KTC, give the parishioners a chance to tell you if they want another substantial precept rise to help pay for a civic centre no one needed, and hardly anyone wants to visit, not even from all over the UK. Tick Tock
It needed the 72.6% precept hike to help cover the civic centre deficit. How would the council have gone on if a 2% cap was in place unless the council held a referendum? How many parishioner would have agreed to a 72.6% increase? And how many would agree to another substantial increase now? Go on KTC, give the parishioners a chance to tell you if they want another substantial precept rise to help pay for a civic centre no one needed, and hardly anyone wants to visit, not even from all over the UK. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

1:34pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Cavetown Council Balance Sheet 2013

Income £0,000

Expenditure £0,000

Budget Requirements 2013/14


Volunteers Expenses £0,000
Equipment £0,000

Total Precept Increase £0,000

To help KTC forecast the amount of funding it will require for the next financial year I have supplied the necessary figures.

Cavendo tutus.
Cavetown Council Balance Sheet 2013 Income £0,000 Expenditure £0,000 Budget Requirements 2013/14 Volunteers Expenses £0,000 Equipment £0,000 Total Precept Increase £0,000 To help KTC forecast the amount of funding it will require for the next financial year I have supplied the necessary figures. Cavendo tutus. Always a 708 Skinhead

1:39pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
It needed the 72.6% precept hike to help cover the civic centre deficit. How would the council have gone on if a 2% cap was in place unless the council held a referendum? How many parishioner would have agreed to a 72.6% increase? And how many would agree to another substantial increase now?

Go on KTC, give the parishioners a chance to tell you if they want another substantial precept rise to help pay for a civic centre no one needed, and hardly anyone wants to visit, not even from all over the UK. Tick Tock
Graham I thought you were sensible ,do you think that this council would do as you suggested ,they are hell bent on proceeding down the path of doom ,They will have to be dragged out screaming before they admit they have made a mistake .and what is so annoying is that it is only 5 of them that is controlling the council
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: It needed the 72.6% precept hike to help cover the civic centre deficit. How would the council have gone on if a 2% cap was in place unless the council held a referendum? How many parishioner would have agreed to a 72.6% increase? And how many would agree to another substantial increase now? Go on KTC, give the parishioners a chance to tell you if they want another substantial precept rise to help pay for a civic centre no one needed, and hardly anyone wants to visit, not even from all over the UK. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Graham I thought you were sensible ,do you think that this council would do as you suggested ,they are hell bent on proceeding down the path of doom ,They will have to be dragged out screaming before they admit they have made a mistake .and what is so annoying is that it is only 5 of them that is controlling the council Ian-Holt Roberts

2:00pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Katiery says...

Ian Holt-Roberts says:... "They will have to be dragged out screaming before they admit they have made a mistake .and what is so annoying is that it is only 5 of them that is controlling the council"

Who are the 5? And why do they have so much power?
Ian Holt-Roberts says:... "They will have to be dragged out screaming before they admit they have made a mistake .and what is so annoying is that it is only 5 of them that is controlling the council" Who are the 5? And why do they have so much power? Katiery

2:49pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

As with most statements made by K.T.C regarding it's loss making civic centre, nothing turns out to be what was said.

FINANCE SUB COMMITTEE minutes 9 JUNE 2010
Mr A Parry advised that the cost of the building would be £100-150,000 as a guideline.

As a guideline it proved to be well off the mark, but Mr Parry had another go at what the building would cost.

Keighley News Thursday 22nd July 2010. Council is to borrow £1.1m for police site.
“Before the vote, town council officer Alan Parry said West Yorkshire Police had agreed to a purchase price of £195,000 for the disused property.”
http://www.keighleyn
ews.co.uk/news/news_
keighley/8284610.Cou
ncil_is_to_borrow___
1_1m_for_police_site
/

From details attained from the Land Registry it stated the building was purchase for £200,000. K.T.C in response to my F.O.I request, on the 27 June 2013 also confirmed the cost was £200,000.


Tick Tock
As with most statements made by K.T.C regarding it's loss making civic centre, nothing turns out to be what was said. FINANCE SUB COMMITTEE minutes 9 JUNE 2010 Mr A Parry advised that the cost of the building would be £100-150,000 as a guideline. As a guideline it proved to be well off the mark, but Mr Parry had another go at what the building would cost. Keighley News Thursday 22nd July 2010. Council is to borrow £1.1m for police site. “Before the vote, town council officer Alan Parry said West Yorkshire Police had agreed to a purchase price of £195,000 for the disused property.” http://www.keighleyn ews.co.uk/news/news_ keighley/8284610.Cou ncil_is_to_borrow___ 1_1m_for_police_site / From details attained from the Land Registry it stated the building was purchase for £200,000. K.T.C in response to my F.O.I request, on the 27 June 2013 also confirmed the cost was £200,000. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

2:52pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

This dysfunctional council will stop at nothing to discredit and blame members of the public for their financial failings. Here we have the hapless mayor bleating about freedom of information requests. In May 2013, the equally hapless clerk reported members of the public to the police for making Freedom of Information requests. This is part of the response I received from the police dated May 2013, in which they have to explain to her that FOI requests do not constitute harassment.

"I have now had the opportunity to read your comments and concerns, and that of the Town Clerk, Miggy Bailey. I am aware that you have had previous dealings with Miggy Bailey in your capacity as one of the administrators for the 'Cave Town' website, that seeks for transparency within the operations of Keighley Town Council.

Firstly, I briefly eluded to the fact that Miggy Bailey had approached myself on 25th April 2013 making an allegation of harassment from the 'Cave Town' activists, but specifically naming yourself as an orchestrator of this. A meeting with Ch Supt Williams was requested by a town council member but was refused as this was not deemed a matter that the Chief Superintendent would directly deal with, hence the decision made to pass this to me to look into and report back on.

Various material was provided to me to review and I informed Mrs Bailey that from first sight, the material provided appeared to amount to what would be considered parliamentary/counci
l business. I could find no correspondence that would amount to anything that would constiture a breach under the Harassment Act 1997, and I intend to inform her today that the numerous requests made under the Freedom Of Information Act by yourself and others, cannot amount to harassment as this is legal right for any citizen to request for any purpose, despite the fact they find the requests "vexatious" and are clearly aggrieved by the amount of work this creates. As for comments alleged between members and parishioners (either by letter/publication/s
ocial media), these do not appear to fall into the remit of harassment either"

SO MAYOR AND CLERK TAKE NOTE. IT IS THE COUNCIL'S FINANCIAL MALADMINISTRATION THAT HAS REQUIRED THE AUDITORS TO STEP IN AND ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS LIE FIRMLY AT THE DOOR OF KEIGHLEY TOWN COUNCIL,NOT THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE SOUGHT INFORMATION AND PASSED IT ON TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.
THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER PRECEPT INCREASE AS YOU HAVE ALREADY UPPED THE MONEY YOU RECEIVE TO OVER £650,000 pa. IF YOU CAN'T MANAGE THE ALLOTMENTS AND THE TOWN HALL SQUARE ON THAT, THEN PLEASE RESIGN.
This dysfunctional council will stop at nothing to discredit and blame members of the public for their financial failings. Here we have the hapless mayor bleating about freedom of information requests. In May 2013, the equally hapless clerk reported members of the public to the police for making Freedom of Information requests. This is part of the response I received from the police dated May 2013, in which they have to explain to her that FOI requests do not constitute harassment. "I have now had the opportunity to read your comments and concerns, and that of the Town Clerk, Miggy Bailey. I am aware that you have had previous dealings with Miggy Bailey in your capacity as one of the administrators for the 'Cave Town' website, that seeks for transparency within the operations of Keighley Town Council. Firstly, I briefly eluded to the fact that Miggy Bailey had approached myself on 25th April 2013 making an allegation of harassment from the 'Cave Town' activists, but specifically naming yourself as an orchestrator of this. A meeting with Ch Supt Williams was requested by a town council member but was refused as this was not deemed a matter that the Chief Superintendent would directly deal with, hence the decision made to pass this to me to look into and report back on. Various material was provided to me to review and I informed Mrs Bailey that from first sight, the material provided appeared to amount to what would be considered parliamentary/counci l business. I could find no correspondence that would amount to anything that would constiture a breach under the Harassment Act 1997, and I intend to inform her today that the numerous requests made under the Freedom Of Information Act by yourself and others, cannot amount to harassment as this is legal right for any citizen to request for any purpose, despite the fact they find the requests "vexatious" and are clearly aggrieved by the amount of work this creates. As for comments alleged between members and parishioners (either by letter/publication/s ocial media), these do not appear to fall into the remit of harassment either" SO MAYOR AND CLERK TAKE NOTE. IT IS THE COUNCIL'S FINANCIAL MALADMINISTRATION THAT HAS REQUIRED THE AUDITORS TO STEP IN AND ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS LIE FIRMLY AT THE DOOR OF KEIGHLEY TOWN COUNCIL,NOT THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE SOUGHT INFORMATION AND PASSED IT ON TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER PRECEPT INCREASE AS YOU HAVE ALREADY UPPED THE MONEY YOU RECEIVE TO OVER £650,000 pa. IF YOU CAN'T MANAGE THE ALLOTMENTS AND THE TOWN HALL SQUARE ON THAT, THEN PLEASE RESIGN. Elizabeth Mitchell

3:01pm Sat 21 Dec 13

pjl20 says...

It isa to be regretted that Kris Hopkins MP has chosen to label Keighley Town Council as being 'dysfunctional'.

There is no doubt that the deficit in income over expenditure by KTC is likely to lead to a increase on the precept for the Keighley parish from April 6th, 2014.

However, it is also important to put this increase into proportion. The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely. This has to be apportioned out among the council tax bands linked to property valuation and should be available by mid-March at the latest.
It isa to be regretted that Kris Hopkins MP has chosen to label Keighley Town Council as being 'dysfunctional'. There is no doubt that the deficit in income over expenditure by KTC is likely to lead to a increase on the precept for the Keighley parish from April 6th, 2014. However, it is also important to put this increase into proportion. The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely. This has to be apportioned out among the council tax bands linked to property valuation and should be available by mid-March at the latest. pjl20

3:24pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Katiery says...

pjl20 wrote:
It isa to be regretted that Kris Hopkins MP has chosen to label Keighley Town Council as being 'dysfunctional'.

There is no doubt that the deficit in income over expenditure by KTC is likely to lead to a increase on the precept for the Keighley parish from April 6th, 2014.

However, it is also important to put this increase into proportion. The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely. This has to be apportioned out among the council tax bands linked to property valuation and should be available by mid-March at the latest.
Ah! Mr pjl20! I left you a comment on another post but you have deigned to ignore it - twice!

I think Mr Hopkins label is very appropriate. Dysfunctional seems to perfectly describe a group who blame the electorate for their own mistakes and financial messes. Perhaps if they took better care over the spending of pubic funds then there would not BE a defecit.

Even in proportion a 72% increase is unacceptable, An extra 2% on an already large bill is still an amount that I, for one, do not want to pay. ANY increase in council tax is too much, particularly when that money is being squandered willy-nilly by said dysfunctional group who refuse to say how they propose to maintain a loss making white elephant other than by precept increases.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: It isa to be regretted that Kris Hopkins MP has chosen to label Keighley Town Council as being 'dysfunctional'. There is no doubt that the deficit in income over expenditure by KTC is likely to lead to a increase on the precept for the Keighley parish from April 6th, 2014. However, it is also important to put this increase into proportion. The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely. This has to be apportioned out among the council tax bands linked to property valuation and should be available by mid-March at the latest.[/p][/quote]Ah! Mr pjl20! I left you a comment on another post but you have deigned to ignore it - twice! I think Mr Hopkins label is very appropriate. Dysfunctional seems to perfectly describe a group who blame the electorate for their own mistakes and financial messes. Perhaps if they took better care over the spending of pubic funds then there would not BE a defecit. Even in proportion a 72% increase is unacceptable, An extra 2% on an already large bill is still an amount that I, for one, do not want to pay. ANY increase in council tax is too much, particularly when that money is being squandered willy-nilly by said dysfunctional group who refuse to say how they propose to maintain a loss making white elephant other than by precept increases. Katiery

3:54pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

pjl20 wrote:
It isa to be regretted that Kris Hopkins MP has chosen to label Keighley Town Council as being 'dysfunctional'.

There is no doubt that the deficit in income over expenditure by KTC is likely to lead to a increase on the precept for the Keighley parish from April 6th, 2014.

However, it is also important to put this increase into proportion. The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely. This has to be apportioned out among the council tax bands linked to property valuation and should be available by mid-March at the latest.
Pij20. Unlike Kris Hopkins you are sadly missing the point. Let me remind you of what it is by quoting Kris Hopkins himself.

“I want to touch on the false assertion that these are only small amounts of money, and are not important. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has fought an effective campaign on a 1p increase on a litre of petrol. There are 2,494 pennies in the council precept in Keighley. Parish and town councils do not have an accountable body, so we have a duty to ensure that the public have a say in any rise in the precept, and a clear understanding of why that rise has been introduced. Many people are struggling, and we should make every effort, however small individually, to reduce the demands on the household purse. I urge the House to support the Bill and give a clear voice to residents who face a rise of more than 2% in their council tax.”

Further pij20, there is a matter of principal and trust as well as the financial one. Parishioner were not asked if they wanted to be made guarantors to a 1.1 million pound loan,plus interest, and further still, all were told it would not need an increase in the precept. That has not been the case. And now the council is trying to blame parishioners for having exposed their maladministration. (L.G.O definition)

I would in this case suggest you read again what Kris Hopkins has said regarding, `the false assertion that these are only small amounts of money.`
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: It isa to be regretted that Kris Hopkins MP has chosen to label Keighley Town Council as being 'dysfunctional'. There is no doubt that the deficit in income over expenditure by KTC is likely to lead to a increase on the precept for the Keighley parish from April 6th, 2014. However, it is also important to put this increase into proportion. The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely. This has to be apportioned out among the council tax bands linked to property valuation and should be available by mid-March at the latest.[/p][/quote]Pij20. Unlike Kris Hopkins you are sadly missing the point. Let me remind you of what it is by quoting Kris Hopkins himself. “I want to touch on the false assertion that these are only small amounts of money, and are not important. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has fought an effective campaign on a 1p increase on a litre of petrol. There are 2,494 pennies in the council precept in Keighley. Parish and town councils do not have an accountable body, so we have a duty to ensure that the public have a say in any rise in the precept, and a clear understanding of why that rise has been introduced. Many people are struggling, and we should make every effort, however small individually, to reduce the demands on the household purse. I urge the House to support the Bill and give a clear voice to residents who face a rise of more than 2% in their council tax.” Further pij20, there is a matter of principal and trust as well as the financial one. Parishioner were not asked if they wanted to be made guarantors to a 1.1 million pound loan,plus interest, and further still, all were told it would not need an increase in the precept. That has not been the case. And now the council is trying to blame parishioners for having exposed their maladministration. (L.G.O definition) I would in this case suggest you read again what Kris Hopkins has said regarding, `the false assertion that these are only small amounts of money.` Graham Forsyth

4:07pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Katiery says...

Graham Forsyth: ..... '. Many people are struggling, and we should make every effort, however small individually, to reduce the demands on the household purse. I urge the House to support the Bill and give a clear voice to residents who face a rise of more than 2% in their council tax.”

Kris Hopkins said that? The same Kris Hopkins who voted AGAINST investigating the need for imcreased Foodbank use in the UK and voted FOR the 11% payrise for M.P.'s? Well I never ...!
Graham Forsyth: ..... '. Many people are struggling, and we should make every effort, however small individually, to reduce the demands on the household purse. I urge the House to support the Bill and give a clear voice to residents who face a rise of more than 2% in their council tax.” Kris Hopkins said that? The same Kris Hopkins who voted AGAINST investigating the need for imcreased Foodbank use in the UK and voted FOR the 11% payrise for M.P.'s? Well I never ...! Katiery

4:16pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Elizabeth Mitchell 2:52pm Sat 21 Dec 13

“I could find no correspondence that would amount to anything that would constiture a breach under the Harassment Act 1997, and I intend to inform her today that the numerous requests made under the Freedom Of Information Act by yourself and others, cannot amount to harassment as this is legal right for any citizen to request for any purpose, despite the fact they find the requests "vexatious" and are clearly aggrieved by the amount of work this creates. As for comments alleged between members and parishioners (either by letter/publication/s
ocial media), these do not appear to fall into the remit of harassment either"

And why is it that a trained town clerk paid a substantial remuneration does not know this?
Elizabeth Mitchell 2:52pm Sat 21 Dec 13 “I could find no correspondence that would amount to anything that would constiture a breach under the Harassment Act 1997, and I intend to inform her today that the numerous requests made under the Freedom Of Information Act by yourself and others, cannot amount to harassment as this is legal right for any citizen to request for any purpose, despite the fact they find the requests "vexatious" and are clearly aggrieved by the amount of work this creates. As for comments alleged between members and parishioners (either by letter/publication/s ocial media), these do not appear to fall into the remit of harassment either" And why is it that a trained town clerk paid a substantial remuneration does not know this? Graham Forsyth

5:28pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

PJL20 seems to know a lot about how much and when the precept will be increased. Yet another councillor wearing his or her invisibility cloak.
they say :
" The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely"
STUPID COUNCILLOR, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DEFICIT. WORK WITHIN YOUR BUDGET, OR EVEN BETTER REDUCE IT.
As the MP says, take a look at your salaries, assets and liabilities for starters.
PJL20 seems to know a lot about how much and when the precept will be increased. Yet another councillor wearing his or her invisibility cloak. they say : " The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely" STUPID COUNCILLOR, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DEFICIT. WORK WITHIN YOUR BUDGET, OR EVEN BETTER REDUCE IT. As the MP says, take a look at your salaries, assets and liabilities for starters. Elizabeth Mitchell

5:31pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

Total spend for November 2013 for Keighley Town Council,, taken from their own Treasurer sheets:
£52,355.
This is madness we can't go on like this
Total spend for November 2013 for Keighley Town Council,, taken from their own Treasurer sheets: £52,355. This is madness we can't go on like this Elizabeth Mitchell

5:32pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
Elizabeth Mitchell 2:52pm Sat 21 Dec 13

“I could find no correspondence that would amount to anything that would constiture a breach under the Harassment Act 1997, and I intend to inform her today that the numerous requests made under the Freedom Of Information Act by yourself and others, cannot amount to harassment as this is legal right for any citizen to request for any purpose, despite the fact they find the requests "vexatious" and are clearly aggrieved by the amount of work this creates. As for comments alleged between members and parishioners (either by letter/publication/s

ocial media), these do not appear to fall into the remit of harassment either"

And why is it that a trained town clerk paid a substantial remuneration does not know this?
GRAHAM THE ANSWER TO THAT IS SIMPLE SHE DOES NOT APPEAR TO KNOW HER JOB . I MENTIONED EARLIER THE GANG OF 5 HERE ARE MINE YOU MAY WISH TO CHANGE IT BUT THERE ARE MY 5 MITCHELL, MORRIS, WRIGHT, WESTERMAN , BAILEY
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: Elizabeth Mitchell 2:52pm Sat 21 Dec 13 “I could find no correspondence that would amount to anything that would constiture a breach under the Harassment Act 1997, and I intend to inform her today that the numerous requests made under the Freedom Of Information Act by yourself and others, cannot amount to harassment as this is legal right for any citizen to request for any purpose, despite the fact they find the requests "vexatious" and are clearly aggrieved by the amount of work this creates. As for comments alleged between members and parishioners (either by letter/publication/s ocial media), these do not appear to fall into the remit of harassment either" And why is it that a trained town clerk paid a substantial remuneration does not know this?[/p][/quote]GRAHAM THE ANSWER TO THAT IS SIMPLE SHE DOES NOT APPEAR TO KNOW HER JOB . I MENTIONED EARLIER THE GANG OF 5 HERE ARE MINE YOU MAY WISH TO CHANGE IT BUT THERE ARE MY 5 MITCHELL, MORRIS, WRIGHT, WESTERMAN , BAILEY Ian-Holt Roberts

5:35pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Total spend for November 2013 for Keighley Town Council,, taken from their own Treasurer sheets:
£52,355.
This is madness we can't go on like this
THEY SPENT £52,363 IN NOVEMBER ON WHAT?
[quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Total spend for November 2013 for Keighley Town Council,, taken from their own Treasurer sheets: £52,355. This is madness we can't go on like this[/p][/quote]THEY SPENT £52,363 IN NOVEMBER ON WHAT? Ian-Holt Roberts

5:36pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

Keighley Town Council Nov 2013
Salaries and Members allowances = £17373
Keighley Town Council Nov 2013 Salaries and Members allowances = £17373 Elizabeth Mitchell

5:43pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Keighley Town Council Nov 2013
Salaries and Members allowances = £17373
WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT
[quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Keighley Town Council Nov 2013 Salaries and Members allowances = £17373[/p][/quote]WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT Ian-Holt Roberts

5:58pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Keighley Town Council Nov 2013
Salaries and Members allowances = £17373
WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC.
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Keighley Town Council Nov 2013 Salaries and Members allowances = £17373[/p][/quote]WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT[/p][/quote]IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC. Ian-Holt Roberts

6:46pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Keighley Town Council Nov 2013
Salaries and Members allowances = £17373
WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC.
Ian, the total expenditure for the civic centre from the 2013/14 budget is £217,034.00. However, this budget would have been calculated while having the cafe run by a paying tenant and one paying tenant still left in the civic centre. Both of these have now gone and the council are having to pay someone to run the catering. Utter madness.
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Keighley Town Council Nov 2013 Salaries and Members allowances = £17373[/p][/quote]WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT[/p][/quote]IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC.[/p][/quote]Ian, the total expenditure for the civic centre from the 2013/14 budget is £217,034.00. However, this budget would have been calculated while having the cafe run by a paying tenant and one paying tenant still left in the civic centre. Both of these have now gone and the council are having to pay someone to run the catering. Utter madness. Graham Forsyth

6:54pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Just been reading through the K.T.C Spring 2011 glossy (Pravda) parish mag.

Under the heading. More power on way to the people? It says:

“Abolition of the Standards Board and a new duty on local authorities to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.”

Reading this I thought back to an email reply Simon Mitchell received from Cllr Brian Morris which just read `D**k head`,(I've been polite with the spelling, unlike Cllr Brian Morris), and to the video footage of Cllr Tony Wright's verbal dialogue with an elderly 79 year old pensioner, and wondered who is promoting and maintaining the high standards?

On the last page under the heading. ‘Localism’ means new challenges , it says:

“Keighley has long been pro-active and has a history of forming partnership relationships with other bodies,companies, voluntary groups and individuals to try and get the best deals for its precept payers.
“So we are well-placed to meet the new challenges,though no one must expect miracles as we too have very limited budgets and a small staffing – and just like the larger authorities we have to live within our means.”

I fail to see how running up a £252,565 civic centre deficit, after borrowing 1.1 million pounds and using £110,000 from the sale of allotments to finance a civic centre that was never needed, and then raising the precept by 72.6% to help pay for the financial disaster is in any way living within it's means. And now we are being warned by Cllr Sally Walker there may be another big precept increase to help pay for all the work the external auditors are having to do due to the council's maladministration (L.G.O definition). So now we are having to pay for the councils incompetence on two counts.

Can Keighley really afford this council? Would not smaller more accountable parish councils be a better option? I
Just been reading through the K.T.C Spring 2011 glossy (Pravda) parish mag. Under the heading. More power on way to the people? It says: “Abolition of the Standards Board and a new duty on local authorities to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.” Reading this I thought back to an email reply Simon Mitchell received from Cllr Brian Morris which just read `D**k head`,(I've been polite with the spelling, unlike Cllr Brian Morris), and to the video footage of Cllr Tony Wright's verbal dialogue with an elderly 79 year old pensioner, and wondered who is promoting and maintaining the high standards? On the last page under the heading. ‘Localism’ means new challenges , it says: “Keighley has long been pro-active and has a history of forming partnership relationships with other bodies,companies, voluntary groups and individuals to try and get the best deals for its precept payers. “So we are well-placed to meet the new challenges,though no one must expect miracles as we too have very limited budgets and a small staffing – and just like the larger authorities we have to live within our means.” I fail to see how running up a £252,565 civic centre deficit, after borrowing 1.1 million pounds and using £110,000 from the sale of allotments to finance a civic centre that was never needed, and then raising the precept by 72.6% to help pay for the financial disaster is in any way living within it's means. And now we are being warned by Cllr Sally Walker there may be another big precept increase to help pay for all the work the external auditors are having to do due to the council's maladministration (L.G.O definition). So now we are having to pay for the councils incompetence on two counts. Can Keighley really afford this council? Would not smaller more accountable parish councils be a better option? I Graham Forsyth

7:45pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Keighley Town Council Nov 2013
Salaries and Members allowances = £17373
WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC.
Ian, the total expenditure for the civic centre from the 2013/14 budget is £217,034.00. However, this budget would have been calculated while having the cafe run by a paying tenant and one paying tenant still left in the civic centre. Both of these have now gone and the council are having to pay someone to run the catering. Utter madness.
SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LOSS OF REVENUE FROM 2 TENANTS PAYING FOR SOMEONE TO RUN THE CATERING ,PLUS THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO PAY EXTRA RATES WHAT IS A ROUGH FIGURE £40,000 ?.IT DOES SOUND UTTER MADNESS YOU ARE RIGHT.IF THEIR IS A COURT CASE AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND STAFF WILL WE HAVE TO PAY THE COUNCILS COST?.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Keighley Town Council Nov 2013 Salaries and Members allowances = £17373[/p][/quote]WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT[/p][/quote]IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC.[/p][/quote]Ian, the total expenditure for the civic centre from the 2013/14 budget is £217,034.00. However, this budget would have been calculated while having the cafe run by a paying tenant and one paying tenant still left in the civic centre. Both of these have now gone and the council are having to pay someone to run the catering. Utter madness.[/p][/quote]SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LOSS OF REVENUE FROM 2 TENANTS PAYING FOR SOMEONE TO RUN THE CATERING ,PLUS THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO PAY EXTRA RATES WHAT IS A ROUGH FIGURE £40,000 ?.IT DOES SOUND UTTER MADNESS YOU ARE RIGHT.IF THEIR IS A COURT CASE AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND STAFF WILL WE HAVE TO PAY THE COUNCILS COST?. Ian-Holt Roberts

7:45pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Keighley Town Council Nov 2013
Salaries and Members allowances = £17373
WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC.
Ian, the total expenditure for the civic centre from the 2013/14 budget is £217,034.00. However, this budget would have been calculated while having the cafe run by a paying tenant and one paying tenant still left in the civic centre. Both of these have now gone and the council are having to pay someone to run the catering. Utter madness.
SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LOSS OF REVENUE FROM 2 TENANTS PAYING FOR SOMEONE TO RUN THE CATERING ,PLUS THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO PAY EXTRA RATES WHAT IS A ROUGH FIGURE £40,000 ?.IT DOES SOUND UTTER MADNESS YOU ARE RIGHT.IF THEIR IS A COURT CASE AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND STAFF WILL WE HAVE TO PAY THE COUNCILS COST?.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Keighley Town Council Nov 2013 Salaries and Members allowances = £17373[/p][/quote]WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT[/p][/quote]IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC.[/p][/quote]Ian, the total expenditure for the civic centre from the 2013/14 budget is £217,034.00. However, this budget would have been calculated while having the cafe run by a paying tenant and one paying tenant still left in the civic centre. Both of these have now gone and the council are having to pay someone to run the catering. Utter madness.[/p][/quote]SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LOSS OF REVENUE FROM 2 TENANTS PAYING FOR SOMEONE TO RUN THE CATERING ,PLUS THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO PAY EXTRA RATES WHAT IS A ROUGH FIGURE £40,000 ?.IT DOES SOUND UTTER MADNESS YOU ARE RIGHT.IF THEIR IS A COURT CASE AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND STAFF WILL WE HAVE TO PAY THE COUNCILS COST?. Ian-Holt Roberts

7:45pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Keighley Town Council Nov 2013
Salaries and Members allowances = £17373
WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC.
Ian, the total expenditure for the civic centre from the 2013/14 budget is £217,034.00. However, this budget would have been calculated while having the cafe run by a paying tenant and one paying tenant still left in the civic centre. Both of these have now gone and the council are having to pay someone to run the catering. Utter madness.
SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LOSS OF REVENUE FROM 2 TENANTS PAYING FOR SOMEONE TO RUN THE CATERING ,PLUS THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO PAY EXTRA RATES WHAT IS A ROUGH FIGURE £40,000 ?.IT DOES SOUND UTTER MADNESS YOU ARE RIGHT.IF THEIR IS A COURT CASE AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND STAFF WILL WE HAVE TO PAY THE COUNCILS COST?.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Keighley Town Council Nov 2013 Salaries and Members allowances = £17373[/p][/quote]WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT[/p][/quote]IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC.[/p][/quote]Ian, the total expenditure for the civic centre from the 2013/14 budget is £217,034.00. However, this budget would have been calculated while having the cafe run by a paying tenant and one paying tenant still left in the civic centre. Both of these have now gone and the council are having to pay someone to run the catering. Utter madness.[/p][/quote]SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LOSS OF REVENUE FROM 2 TENANTS PAYING FOR SOMEONE TO RUN THE CATERING ,PLUS THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO PAY EXTRA RATES WHAT IS A ROUGH FIGURE £40,000 ?.IT DOES SOUND UTTER MADNESS YOU ARE RIGHT.IF THEIR IS A COURT CASE AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND STAFF WILL WE HAVE TO PAY THE COUNCILS COST?. Ian-Holt Roberts

7:45pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
Keighley Town Council Nov 2013
Salaries and Members allowances = £17373
WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC.
Ian, the total expenditure for the civic centre from the 2013/14 budget is £217,034.00. However, this budget would have been calculated while having the cafe run by a paying tenant and one paying tenant still left in the civic centre. Both of these have now gone and the council are having to pay someone to run the catering. Utter madness.
SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LOSS OF REVENUE FROM 2 TENANTS PAYING FOR SOMEONE TO RUN THE CATERING ,PLUS THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO PAY EXTRA RATES WHAT IS A ROUGH FIGURE £40,000 ?.IT DOES SOUND UTTER MADNESS YOU ARE RIGHT.IF THEIR IS A COURT CASE AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND STAFF WILL WE HAVE TO PAY THE COUNCILS COST?.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: Keighley Town Council Nov 2013 Salaries and Members allowances = £17373[/p][/quote]WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A TYPICAL MONTHLY PAY OUT[/p][/quote]IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A TOTAL COST FOR HAVING AND RUNNING THE CIVIC CENTER INCLUDING RATES ETC.[/p][/quote]Ian, the total expenditure for the civic centre from the 2013/14 budget is £217,034.00. However, this budget would have been calculated while having the cafe run by a paying tenant and one paying tenant still left in the civic centre. Both of these have now gone and the council are having to pay someone to run the catering. Utter madness.[/p][/quote]SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LOSS OF REVENUE FROM 2 TENANTS PAYING FOR SOMEONE TO RUN THE CATERING ,PLUS THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO PAY EXTRA RATES WHAT IS A ROUGH FIGURE £40,000 ?.IT DOES SOUND UTTER MADNESS YOU ARE RIGHT.IF THEIR IS A COURT CASE AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND STAFF WILL WE HAVE TO PAY THE COUNCILS COST?. Ian-Holt Roberts

7:58pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

I KNOW THIS IS GOING OFF THE THREAD BUT IF IT COST £10,000.FOR THE BY ELECTION,30 AND THE FULL ELECTION FOR THE COUNCIL IS 2015 DOES THAT MEAN WE HAVE A FIGURE OF 30 COUNCILORS X £10,000 TO FIND IE £3OO,OOO.I AM AWARE THEY HAVE TO HAVE A FUND OF SOME SORTS BUT CAN YOU SEE THEM HAVING THAT TOTAL?.
I KNOW THIS IS GOING OFF THE THREAD BUT IF IT COST £10,000.FOR THE BY ELECTION,30 AND THE FULL ELECTION FOR THE COUNCIL IS 2015 DOES THAT MEAN WE HAVE A FIGURE OF 30 COUNCILORS X £10,000 TO FIND IE £3OO,OOO.I AM AWARE THEY HAVE TO HAVE A FUND OF SOME SORTS BUT CAN YOU SEE THEM HAVING THAT TOTAL?. Ian-Holt Roberts

7:59pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Katiery says...

Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
PJL20 seems to know a lot about how much and when the precept will be increased. Yet another councillor wearing his or her invisibility cloak.
they say :
" The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely"
STUPID COUNCILLOR, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DEFICIT. WORK WITHIN YOUR BUDGET, OR EVEN BETTER REDUCE IT.
As the MP says, take a look at your salaries, assets and liabilities for starters.
Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth.

The defecit will have to include the loan payments for the civic centre loan I expect? There doesn't seem to be any other way that they can e paid if the civic centre has no income.
[quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: PJL20 seems to know a lot about how much and when the precept will be increased. Yet another councillor wearing his or her invisibility cloak. they say : " The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely" STUPID COUNCILLOR, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DEFICIT. WORK WITHIN YOUR BUDGET, OR EVEN BETTER REDUCE IT. As the MP says, take a look at your salaries, assets and liabilities for starters.[/p][/quote]Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth. The defecit will have to include the loan payments for the civic centre loan I expect? There doesn't seem to be any other way that they can e paid if the civic centre has no income. Katiery

8:10pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Here's some more from the Winter 2011 (Pravda) parish mag under the heading:

Mayor responds to a letter writer’s
“A letter recently written to a locally circulating newspaper was highly critical of Keighley Town Council’s performance, decision making, and its efforts to bring new life into the town centre with refurbishment of the former police station. To bring the debate to a wider audience(through the pages of Keighley) the substance of that correspondent’s letter is printed at the foot of this page.
“And in the interests of fairness and balance, it is accompanied by a response from Keighley Town Mayor Cllr Tony Wright. Readers are invited to reach their own conclusions”

HE SAID: Others seem determined to saddle Keighley council taxpayers with enormous debts, on top of the almost half a million it currently costs us and which makes it the most expensive parish council around. I don’t want my council taxes to be increased to cover what will be a further yearly millstone of up to £55,000 each year.

I SAY: Keighley Town Council is not only the largest parish council in the Bradford Metropolitan District, it is one of the biggest in England, with an electorate of over 37,000. Its annual budget of £390,000 is therefore significantly larger, in total, than those of much smaller councils. Despite that it currently charges a Band D householder only £24.30 annual precept (less than 50p per week) and unlike Ilkley or Addingham, most of its people live in houses rated in Band A or B, so in reality many precept payers in Keighley pay less than those in other nearby parishes. It is also one of the few parish councils not to have increased its precept since 2009.

It's that last bit again folks: “It is also one of the few parish councils not to have increased its precept since 2009.”

So this from the Keighley news must be wrong then.

Thursday 11th February 2010.Keighley Town Council precept.
“Keighley’s town council has agreed to a 3.4 per cent rise in its precept for the coming financial year. The budget was voted on after heated exchanges between councillors, during which town mayor Councillor Margaret Ward repeatedly warned colleagues to moderate their language.
Finance committee chairman Cllr John Philip proposed the 3.4 per cent increase.
He said this would only have been 0.4 per cent if today’s Riddlesden and Stockbridge by-election — forecast to cost the council £10,000 — had been avoided through co-opting a new member.”

What is it Eric Pickle said about Town Hall Pravda.
“As we all recognise, local journalism has been under increasing pressure from the relentless news cycle and the internet.  But if local newspapers disappear, where will residents get an independent, thoughtful critique of how their councillors are behaving and how their council is performing? Certainly not from the town hall Pravda where glossy print meets spin.”

So who is right here, the mayor of KTC or the Keighley News? Well, I can tell you it is the Keighley News as I was one of those who signed the petition in 2010 calling for the election.

Readers are invited to reach their own conclusions. Tick Tock
Here's some more from the Winter 2011 (Pravda) parish mag under the heading: Mayor responds to a letter writer’s “A letter recently written to a locally circulating newspaper was highly critical of Keighley Town Council’s performance, decision making, and its efforts to bring new life into the town centre with refurbishment of the former police station. To bring the debate to a wider audience(through the pages of Keighley) the substance of that correspondent’s letter is printed at the foot of this page. “And in the interests of fairness and balance, it is accompanied by a response from Keighley Town Mayor Cllr Tony Wright. Readers are invited to reach their own conclusions” HE SAID: Others seem determined to saddle Keighley council taxpayers with enormous debts, on top of the almost half a million it currently costs us and which makes it the most expensive parish council around. I don’t want my council taxes to be increased to cover what will be a further yearly millstone of up to £55,000 each year. I SAY: Keighley Town Council is not only the largest parish council in the Bradford Metropolitan District, it is one of the biggest in England, with an electorate of over 37,000. Its annual budget of £390,000 is therefore significantly larger, in total, than those of much smaller councils. Despite that it currently charges a Band D householder only £24.30 annual precept (less than 50p per week) and unlike Ilkley or Addingham, most of its people live in houses rated in Band A or B, so in reality many precept payers in Keighley pay less than those in other nearby parishes. It is also one of the few parish councils not to have increased its precept since 2009. It's that last bit again folks: “It is also one of the few parish councils not to have increased its precept since 2009.” So this from the Keighley news must be wrong then. Thursday 11th February 2010.Keighley Town Council precept. “Keighley’s town council has agreed to a 3.4 per cent rise in its precept for the coming financial year. The budget was voted on after heated exchanges between councillors, during which town mayor Councillor Margaret Ward repeatedly warned colleagues to moderate their language. Finance committee chairman Cllr John Philip proposed the 3.4 per cent increase. He said this would only have been 0.4 per cent if today’s Riddlesden and Stockbridge by-election — forecast to cost the council £10,000 — had been avoided through co-opting a new member.” What is it Eric Pickle said about Town Hall Pravda. “As we all recognise, local journalism has been under increasing pressure from the relentless news cycle and the internet.  But if local newspapers disappear, where will residents get an independent, thoughtful critique of how their councillors are behaving and how their council is performing? Certainly not from the town hall Pravda where glossy print meets spin.” So who is right here, the mayor of KTC or the Keighley News? Well, I can tell you it is the Keighley News as I was one of those who signed the petition in 2010 calling for the election. Readers are invited to reach their own conclusions. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

8:12pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Katiery wrote:
Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
PJL20 seems to know a lot about how much and when the precept will be increased. Yet another councillor wearing his or her invisibility cloak.
they say :
" The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely"
STUPID COUNCILLOR, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DEFICIT. WORK WITHIN YOUR BUDGET, OR EVEN BETTER REDUCE IT.
As the MP says, take a look at your salaries, assets and liabilities for starters.
Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth.

The defecit will have to include the loan payments for the civic centre loan I expect? There doesn't seem to be any other way that they can e paid if the civic centre has no income.
I AM SURE THEY COULD MAKE A START BY NOT RENTING THE GARAGE UP RUSSEL STREET TO STORE ITEMS WHEN WE HAVE SPACE AT THE CIVIC CENTER THAT WOULD SAVE £1O,OOO.PER YEAR
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: PJL20 seems to know a lot about how much and when the precept will be increased. Yet another councillor wearing his or her invisibility cloak. they say : " The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely" STUPID COUNCILLOR, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DEFICIT. WORK WITHIN YOUR BUDGET, OR EVEN BETTER REDUCE IT. As the MP says, take a look at your salaries, assets and liabilities for starters.[/p][/quote]Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth. The defecit will have to include the loan payments for the civic centre loan I expect? There doesn't seem to be any other way that they can e paid if the civic centre has no income.[/p][/quote]I AM SURE THEY COULD MAKE A START BY NOT RENTING THE GARAGE UP RUSSEL STREET TO STORE ITEMS WHEN WE HAVE SPACE AT THE CIVIC CENTER THAT WOULD SAVE £1O,OOO.PER YEAR Ian-Holt Roberts

8:26pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Katiery says 7:59pm Sat 21 Dec 13

“Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth.”

Are we to take it UKIP are happy for parishioners to keep on paying out because it is only a small percentage? Maybe that can be placed on his election leaflet when he asked for the votes from Keighley parishioners.
Katiery says 7:59pm Sat 21 Dec 13 “Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth.” Are we to take it UKIP are happy for parishioners to keep on paying out because it is only a small percentage? Maybe that can be placed on his election leaflet when he asked for the votes from Keighley parishioners. Graham Forsyth

8:37pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Katiery wrote:
Elizabeth Mitchell wrote:
PJL20 seems to know a lot about how much and when the precept will be increased. Yet another councillor wearing his or her invisibility cloak.
they say :
" The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely"
STUPID COUNCILLOR, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DEFICIT. WORK WITHIN YOUR BUDGET, OR EVEN BETTER REDUCE IT.
As the MP says, take a look at your salaries, assets and liabilities for starters.
Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth.

The defecit will have to include the loan payments for the civic centre loan I expect? There doesn't seem to be any other way that they can e paid if the civic centre has no income.
I AM SURE THEY COULD MAKE A START BY NOT RENTING THE GARAGE UP RUSSEL STREET TO STORE ITEMS WHEN WE HAVE SPACE AT THE CIVIC CENTER THAT WOULD SAVE £1O,OOO.PER YEAR
IF THIS IS THE NEW COUNCILOR SAYING IT IS NO MORE THAN 2%IN THE OVERALL BILL HE IS AS DAFT AS THE REST OF THEM IF THE POLITICIANS INCREASE ANYTHING BY %2 THEY SAY IT IS NO MORE THAN ,IN THE EVENT THAT THEY REDUCE ANYTHING THEY SAY A MASSIVE %2 SAVING .WELL MR UKIP YOU HAVE NOT GOT OFF TO A GOOD START.
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elizabeth Mitchell[/bold] wrote: PJL20 seems to know a lot about how much and when the precept will be increased. Yet another councillor wearing his or her invisibility cloak. they say : " The substantial deficit may increase the parish precept, but the overall increase in council tax for householders will be very small. No more than 2% in the overall bill, is likely" STUPID COUNCILLOR, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DEFICIT. WORK WITHIN YOUR BUDGET, OR EVEN BETTER REDUCE IT. As the MP says, take a look at your salaries, assets and liabilities for starters.[/p][/quote]Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth. The defecit will have to include the loan payments for the civic centre loan I expect? There doesn't seem to be any other way that they can e paid if the civic centre has no income.[/p][/quote]I AM SURE THEY COULD MAKE A START BY NOT RENTING THE GARAGE UP RUSSEL STREET TO STORE ITEMS WHEN WE HAVE SPACE AT THE CIVIC CENTER THAT WOULD SAVE £1O,OOO.PER YEAR[/p][/quote]IF THIS IS THE NEW COUNCILOR SAYING IT IS NO MORE THAN 2%IN THE OVERALL BILL HE IS AS DAFT AS THE REST OF THEM IF THE POLITICIANS INCREASE ANYTHING BY %2 THEY SAY IT IS NO MORE THAN ,IN THE EVENT THAT THEY REDUCE ANYTHING THEY SAY A MASSIVE %2 SAVING .WELL MR UKIP YOU HAVE NOT GOT OFF TO A GOOD START. Ian-Holt Roberts

8:41pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
Katiery says 7:59pm Sat 21 Dec 13

“Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth.”

Are we to take it UKIP are happy for parishioners to keep on paying out because it is only a small percentage? Maybe that can be placed on his election leaflet when he asked for the votes from Keighley parishioners.
DID HE NOT SAY IF THEY CAN NOT MAKE IT PAY THEN IT SHOULD BE CLOSED.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: Katiery says 7:59pm Sat 21 Dec 13 “Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth.” Are we to take it UKIP are happy for parishioners to keep on paying out because it is only a small percentage? Maybe that can be placed on his election leaflet when he asked for the votes from Keighley parishioners.[/p][/quote]DID HE NOT SAY IF THEY CAN NOT MAKE IT PAY THEN IT SHOULD BE CLOSED. Ian-Holt Roberts

9:06pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Graham Forsyth wrote:
Katiery says 7:59pm Sat 21 Dec 13

“Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth.”

Are we to take it UKIP are happy for parishioners to keep on paying out because it is only a small percentage? Maybe that can be placed on his election leaflet when he asked for the votes from Keighley parishioners.
DID HE NOT SAY IF THEY CAN NOT MAKE IT PAY THEN IT SHOULD BE CLOSED.
Yes, I think he did Ian, but how will it ever be closed if KTC are allowed to keep making us pay for it via the precept and such as UKIP explain it is only a small percentage?
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: Katiery says 7:59pm Sat 21 Dec 13 “Plj20 has already stated in another thread that he is the newly elected UKIP Town Councillor, Elizabeth.” Are we to take it UKIP are happy for parishioners to keep on paying out because it is only a small percentage? Maybe that can be placed on his election leaflet when he asked for the votes from Keighley parishioners.[/p][/quote]DID HE NOT SAY IF THEY CAN NOT MAKE IT PAY THEN IT SHOULD BE CLOSED.[/p][/quote]Yes, I think he did Ian, but how will it ever be closed if KTC are allowed to keep making us pay for it via the precept and such as UKIP explain it is only a small percentage? Graham Forsyth

9:38pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Sally Walker states-
“The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.”

This is a very misleading statement, in fact it is mainly incorrect.

Several Parishioners did view the Accounts and Objections were raised by these citizens due to irregularities uncovered. This is a Legal Right which is in place to ensure Accountability by the only people who are sanctioned to do this- The Electorate.

The Town council is Obligated by The Audit Commission Act 1998 to exercise tight financial controls in respect of their finances and accounts. The legislation requires a parish council’s yearly accounts to be audited by an external auditor appointed by the Audit Commission.

That the auditing process has not yet been finalised is due to the accuracy and legitimacy of the councils own records kept and recorded by the RFO..
If the points raised in the Objections are taking an extended amount of time to reconcile then this is the fault of the Council and it's staff.

After all, the Public were granted less that 2 hours each to view the accounts so the Objections were identified and investigated within this timeframe by The Public.

The reality is mayor Walker, that the estimated cost of this legally required audit of £30,000 to £50,000 is because of incompetence and neglect on the part of council members and employees not the fault of law abiding citizens.
You have again recorded in print another example of a misleading statement and one which I presume, was prepared and issued by you, the mayor.
It shows a lack of research into the Legal Obligations of the council and also cast doubt over the accuracy of the entire Budget which it seems has been formulated without due consideration to all the pertinent factors involved in ensuring an Accurate Forecast is produced.

You might wish to consider the damage this does to the reputation of the council in your name Mayor Walker.
You should also rectify this inaccuracy and start using facts in your future comments. to uphold the Honesty commitment you have in your role at KTC.

Cavendo tutus
Tick Tock
Simon Mitchell.
Sally Walker states- “The many objections made by this group to the council accounts, which as a result are still being audited, will result in the town council – and therefore Keighley ratepayers – receiving additional costs of between £30,000 and £50,000.” This is a very misleading statement, in fact it is mainly incorrect. Several Parishioners did view the Accounts and Objections were raised by these citizens due to irregularities uncovered. This is a Legal Right which is in place to ensure Accountability by the only people who are sanctioned to do this- The Electorate. The Town council is Obligated by The Audit Commission Act 1998 to exercise tight financial controls in respect of their finances and accounts. The legislation requires a parish council’s yearly accounts to be audited by an external auditor appointed by the Audit Commission. That the auditing process has not yet been finalised is due to the accuracy and legitimacy of the councils own records kept and recorded by the RFO.. If the points raised in the Objections are taking an extended amount of time to reconcile then this is the fault of the Council and it's staff. After all, the Public were granted less that 2 hours each to view the accounts so the Objections were identified and investigated within this timeframe by The Public. The reality is mayor Walker, that the estimated cost of this legally required audit of £30,000 to £50,000 is because of incompetence and neglect on the part of council members and employees not the fault of law abiding citizens. You have again recorded in print another example of a misleading statement and one which I presume, was prepared and issued by you, the mayor. It shows a lack of research into the Legal Obligations of the council and also cast doubt over the accuracy of the entire Budget which it seems has been formulated without due consideration to all the pertinent factors involved in ensuring an Accurate Forecast is produced. You might wish to consider the damage this does to the reputation of the council in your name Mayor Walker. You should also rectify this inaccuracy and start using facts in your future comments. to uphold the Honesty commitment you have in your role at KTC. Cavendo tutus Tick Tock Simon Mitchell. Always a 708 Skinhead

11:08pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

England has over 10,000 Parishes.
Of these, 8,805 local Precepting Authorities added an increase on the cost of the Council Tax.
This additional cost to the Public for 2013/14 was £367 million which equates to 1.6% of the total Council Tax Requirement for England.

90% of local precepting authorities have a precept of less than £100,000.
1% have a precept of over £500,000 and two local precepting authorities have a precept in excess of £1.9 million which is similar to some district councils.

I don't consider last years extraction from Keighley Families of in excess of £650,000 to be "very small" pjl20.
Particularly as this money was quoted in this article as "the lion’s share of which was required to prop up its ailing civic centre."
To take the money of families is one thing, to then waste it repaying the recklessly ambitious 50 year loan and service the debts of a failed business venture created in a culture of concealment, unaccountability and complacency as highlighted by the Report by councillor Pedley is more than dysfunctional, it is despicable.

Nor do I consider being one of only 88 councils throughout England to be charging over half a million pounds to be a ranking of pride.
While I have no doubt that you are one of the larger Parishes in England, I am pretty sure you are not one of the most affluent!
Safety through Caution should be the motto here, not Suck it and See!

So what fiscal nightmare awaits these beleaguered families in the next financial year?
My predictions for 'mid march at the latest' are an increase in excess of 47% taking the amount extracted from the People of the Town to exceed the £1 million figure and still no signs of a profit generated by the Civic Centre.
I sincerely hope I am proven very much wrong on this one.
Or that the Local Audit & Accountability Bill passes in time to impose a cap on the Precept which triggers approval by a Public Referendum if it is exceeded.

Cavendo tutus

Simon Mitchell
England has over 10,000 Parishes. Of these, 8,805 local Precepting Authorities added an increase on the cost of the Council Tax. This additional cost to the Public for 2013/14 was £367 million which equates to 1.6% of the total Council Tax Requirement for England. 90% of local precepting authorities have a precept of less than £100,000. 1% have a precept of over £500,000 and two local precepting authorities have a precept in excess of £1.9 million which is similar to some district councils. I don't consider last years extraction from Keighley Families of in excess of £650,000 to be "very small" pjl20. Particularly as this money was quoted in this article as "the lion’s share of which was required to prop up its ailing civic centre." To take the money of families is one thing, to then waste it repaying the recklessly ambitious 50 year loan and service the debts of a failed business venture created in a culture of concealment, unaccountability and complacency as highlighted by the Report by councillor Pedley is more than dysfunctional, it is despicable. Nor do I consider being one of only 88 councils throughout England to be charging over half a million pounds to be a ranking of pride. While I have no doubt that you are one of the larger Parishes in England, I am pretty sure you are not one of the most affluent! Safety through Caution should be the motto here, not Suck it and See! So what fiscal nightmare awaits these beleaguered families in the next financial year? My predictions for 'mid march at the latest' are an increase in excess of 47% taking the amount extracted from the People of the Town to exceed the £1 million figure and still no signs of a profit generated by the Civic Centre. I sincerely hope I am proven very much wrong on this one. Or that the Local Audit & Accountability Bill passes in time to impose a cap on the Precept which triggers approval by a Public Referendum if it is exceeded. Cavendo tutus Simon Mitchell Always a 708 Skinhead

8:14am Sun 22 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

The glossy (Pravda) parish mags do provide some really farcical reading, although KTC meant it to be taken seriously. From the Summer 2011 offering it says under the heading, `Helping protect our town’s heritage`, by the town clerk, Miggy Baileys:

“Keighley Town Centre conservation area was identified as being ‘at risk’ in an English Heritage survey, which prompted a successful application to the Heritage Lottery Fund for Townscape Heritage Initiative funding. Central to the bid was the former police station which KTC has recently bought with the intention of converting it into a much needed civic centre.”

Did you get the last bit, “much needed civic centre.” It's that badly needed no one hardly goes there, except the council. And if you thought that was farcical, read on:

Civic centre is all systems go! By KTC Special Projects Officer Alan Parry.
Corporate and arts events
“A theatre management company will be appointed which will be responsible for providing all events in the Civic Centre. Those events will include contracts for the educational centre of excellence, corporate entertainment, and putting on many different types of shows such as thrillers, mystery nights, fright nights, drama productions, historic events, mock trials, and much, much more. That aspect is aimed at promoting the Civic Centre on a national basis, bringing new corporate money into our economy and, with the experience of professional management and contacts for national exposure, I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.”

Did you get the last bit again: ”I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.” At what though, because that is now the question. Meanwhile it is successfully draining away around a quarter of a million pounds of precept money and there is no end in sight as to when, or how, it will stop.

However, KTC have kept their fairground spirit and though lacking an Aunt Sally, they offer up the next best thing, a Cllr Sally, to issues letters to the K.N so criticisms, which are more than justified, can be thrown.
The glossy (Pravda) parish mags do provide some really farcical reading, although KTC meant it to be taken seriously. From the Summer 2011 offering it says under the heading, `Helping protect our town’s heritage`, by the town clerk, Miggy Baileys: “Keighley Town Centre conservation area was identified as being ‘at risk’ in an English Heritage survey, which prompted a successful application to the Heritage Lottery Fund for Townscape Heritage Initiative funding. Central to the bid was the former police station which KTC has recently bought with the intention of converting it into a much needed civic centre.” Did you get the last bit, “much needed civic centre.” It's that badly needed no one hardly goes there, except the council. And if you thought that was farcical, read on: Civic centre is all systems go! By KTC Special Projects Officer Alan Parry. Corporate and arts events “A theatre management company will be appointed which will be responsible for providing all events in the Civic Centre. Those events will include contracts for the educational centre of excellence, corporate entertainment, and putting on many different types of shows such as thrillers, mystery nights, fright nights, drama productions, historic events, mock trials, and much, much more. That aspect is aimed at promoting the Civic Centre on a national basis, bringing new corporate money into our economy and, with the experience of professional management and contacts for national exposure, I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.” Did you get the last bit again: ”I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.” At what though, because that is now the question. Meanwhile it is successfully draining away around a quarter of a million pounds of precept money and there is no end in sight as to when, or how, it will stop. However, KTC have kept their fairground spirit and though lacking an Aunt Sally, they offer up the next best thing, a Cllr Sally, to issues letters to the K.N so criticisms, which are more than justified, can be thrown. Graham Forsyth

9:27am Sun 22 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Mr Forsyth,
You have posted the words of Alan Parry-
"That aspect is aimed at promoting the Civic Centre on a national basis, bringing new corporate money into our economy and, with the experience of professional management and contacts for national exposure, I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.”

The following figures are taken from the KTC Year End Accounts

Income & Expenditure Account for the year ending 31 March 2012
Projects Co-ordinator Income £2,480
Projects Co-ordinator Expenditure £40,232

So it seems Mr Parry was talking a lot of very expensive nonsense which cost the Electorate £37752.

Of course we are yet to sight any Income and Expenditure generated by Fast Talking Parry for the Year Ending 31 March 2013 as KTC have not yet had Approval from the External Auditors but we can read some comments thanks to the Pedley Report compiled in Nov 2012 and immediately supressed-

"6.4 There is good reason to believe that AP failed to deliver the expected outcomes that were tasked for the Civic Centre. KTC made a considerable financial committed on the understanding that the SPC would ensure that the centre’s running
cost were fully covered. This has not been accomplished and has left KTC in a precarious position. The current financial deficit stands at £64.000"

As we all know this figure then spiralled out of control and reached £252.000 by the End of the Financial Year March 2013.
Of course since then Mr Parry has left the council, but so have all the Tenants!
As KTC is now in "silent running mode" about the Civic Centre until they hold an early February meeting in which they hope to hurriedly get council approval of an undisclosed Precept Rise, we will not know just how much Mr Parry's silver tongue has truly cost.

A reminder to all the councillors- when you are bullied and pressured to vote for a Precept Rise please do not be swayed by Angry Mitchell blustering about second class stamps or such nonsense. and just remember this simple formula. 47%+ will equal the council extorting £1 Million plus from Keighley Families Income and used to throw down the drains of North Street.
Have a look around councillors, can the public catching the buses or going through the courts, tending their allotments or taking their kids to Sea Cadets really afford over £1 Million less circulating amongst them?

Anything over 5% is extremely excessive, but I doubt that would of prompted a Headline of " Keighley ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for what could be a second consecutive record-breaking tax hike."
And the subsequent attempts to blame Cavetown for everything.

Cavendo tutus
Tick Tock
Simon Mitchell
Mr Forsyth, You have posted the words of Alan Parry- "That aspect is aimed at promoting the Civic Centre on a national basis, bringing new corporate money into our economy and, with the experience of professional management and contacts for national exposure, I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.” The following figures are taken from the KTC Year End Accounts Income & Expenditure Account for the year ending 31 March 2012 Projects Co-ordinator Income £2,480 Projects Co-ordinator Expenditure £40,232 So it seems Mr Parry was talking a lot of very expensive nonsense which cost the Electorate £37752. Of course we are yet to sight any Income and Expenditure generated by Fast Talking Parry for the Year Ending 31 March 2013 as KTC have not yet had Approval from the External Auditors but we can read some comments thanks to the Pedley Report compiled in Nov 2012 and immediately supressed- "6.4 There is good reason to believe that AP failed to deliver the expected outcomes that were tasked for the Civic Centre. KTC made a considerable financial committed on the understanding that the SPC would ensure that the centre’s running cost were fully covered. This has not been accomplished and has left KTC in a precarious position. The current financial deficit stands at £64.000" As we all know this figure then spiralled out of control and reached £252.000 by the End of the Financial Year March 2013. Of course since then Mr Parry has left the council, but so have all the Tenants! As KTC is now in "silent running mode" about the Civic Centre until they hold an early February meeting in which they hope to hurriedly get council approval of an undisclosed Precept Rise, we will not know just how much Mr Parry's silver tongue has truly cost. A reminder to all the councillors- when you are bullied and pressured to vote for a Precept Rise please do not be swayed by Angry Mitchell blustering about second class stamps or such nonsense. and just remember this simple formula. 47%+ will equal the council extorting £1 Million plus from Keighley Families Income and used to throw down the drains of North Street. Have a look around councillors, can the public catching the buses or going through the courts, tending their allotments or taking their kids to Sea Cadets really afford over £1 Million less circulating amongst them? Anything over 5% is extremely excessive, but I doubt that would of prompted a Headline of " Keighley ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for what could be a second consecutive record-breaking tax hike." And the subsequent attempts to blame Cavetown for everything. Cavendo tutus Tick Tock Simon Mitchell Always a 708 Skinhead

10:03am Sun 22 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Here is more from the KTC Spring 2012 glossy (Pravda) parish mag (regarding the civic centre)
No cost to precept payers
The regeneration has cost around £1million.But KTC Finance Committee Chairman Cllr John Philip said: “It won’t cost the precept (the money local householders pay to KTC each year for its services) payers a penny”
“Bringing it all together and achieving that has to be a creditable performance for a town council. “Thanks to the way it is funded it is already financially self-sufficient – a win win situation for everyone.”

How come it was self-sufficient in the Spring of 2012 yet in May and June of the same year, KTC were drafting out two `confidential` document which stated, in red ink:

“Unless there is a vast amount of income generated, it will be the Town Council reserves that will be supporting the shortfall.”

The K.N covered this story here:Thursday 26th July. 2012 Civic centre 'in money losses'

So back in May and June of 2012 KTC were concerned about the losses of the civic centre. And collated figures attained from the council's own Civic Centre Receipts and Payments from April to December 2012 show losses for each month .

Now that cannot be blamed on Cavetown . Tick Tock
Here is more from the KTC Spring 2012 glossy (Pravda) parish mag (regarding the civic centre) No cost to precept payers The regeneration has cost around £1million.But KTC Finance Committee Chairman Cllr John Philip said: “It won’t cost the precept (the money local householders pay to KTC each year for its services) payers a penny” “Bringing it all together and achieving that has to be a creditable performance for a town council. “Thanks to the way it is funded it is already financially self-sufficient – a win win situation for everyone.” How come it was self-sufficient in the Spring of 2012 yet in May and June of the same year, KTC were drafting out two `confidential` document which stated, in red ink: “Unless there is a vast amount of income generated, it will be the Town Council reserves that will be supporting the shortfall.” The K.N covered this story here:Thursday 26th July. 2012 Civic centre 'in money losses' So back in May and June of 2012 KTC were concerned about the losses of the civic centre. And collated figures attained from the council's own Civic Centre Receipts and Payments from April to December 2012 show losses for each month . Now that cannot be blamed on Cavetown . Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

10:14am Sun 22 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Don't Blame it on the Sunshine! Don't Blame it on the Moonlight! Don't Blame it on the Cavetown!........ Blame it on the Council!!!!.
Don't Blame it on the Sunshine! Don't Blame it on the Moonlight! Don't Blame it on the Cavetown!........ Blame it on the Council!!!!. Always a 708 Skinhead

10:15am Sun 22 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Back in 2010, over the calling of a by-election in the Riddlesden-Stockbrid
ge Ward, which was to cost £10,000, the Finance Committee chairman, Cllr John Philip, stated in the K.N. Thursday 11th February 2010.Keighley Town Council precept

“There are two ways you can harm the effectiveness of this council. One is to divide and conquer and the other is get it to spend your money on inessentials.”

Two points by Cllr John Philip which to be fair, have merit.

The first point, to `divide and conquer.`
How does the concealing of an investigative report from the full council, which the full council voted to have undertaken, help to a create none divided council?

How does the refusing of a councillor to see documents held by the council in accordance with Standing Order 22, by a council employee, help to create a none divided council?

Why do we constantly hear talk of a small group that controls the council if there is a none divided council?

The second point. ` spend your money on inessentials.`

When located in the Town Hall the overheads for the building were paid by Bradford Council, so how essential was the civic centre as accommodation?.

How essential is the cafe? The former tenants who were paying rent to the council left, stating in the T&A. Friday 9th August 2013.New blow for Keighley Civic Centre
“All along we’ve been saying to the council that the money just isn’t there,” he said. “Since we’ve been in the civic centre we’ve lost £17,500.” Now the council is having to pay for someone to run the catering. So is customer money now there?

How essential is the Police Museum? We know when it was the Police Experience it never made any money and was handed back to the council to pay for.

How essential is the Information Centre and Shop?

Spending £10,000 on a by-election instead of co-option was seen as spending on inessentials, so why does the same council see spending £252,565 to cover the civic centre deficit, and the council does not know when, or if, it will ever end, does not come under the same category?


The utter buffoonery this council exhibits only brings ridicule upon the town. And that cannot be blamed on Cavetown.

Tick Tock
Back in 2010, over the calling of a by-election in the Riddlesden-Stockbrid ge Ward, which was to cost £10,000, the Finance Committee chairman, Cllr John Philip, stated in the K.N. Thursday 11th February 2010.Keighley Town Council precept “There are two ways you can harm the effectiveness of this council. One is to divide and conquer and the other is get it to spend your money on inessentials.” Two points by Cllr John Philip which to be fair, have merit. The first point, to `divide and conquer.` How does the concealing of an investigative report from the full council, which the full council voted to have undertaken, help to a create none divided council? How does the refusing of a councillor to see documents held by the council in accordance with Standing Order 22, by a council employee, help to create a none divided council? Why do we constantly hear talk of a small group that controls the council if there is a none divided council? The second point. ` spend your money on inessentials.` When located in the Town Hall the overheads for the building were paid by Bradford Council, so how essential was the civic centre as accommodation?. How essential is the cafe? The former tenants who were paying rent to the council left, stating in the T&A. Friday 9th August 2013.New blow for Keighley Civic Centre “All along we’ve been saying to the council that the money just isn’t there,” he said. “Since we’ve been in the civic centre we’ve lost £17,500.” Now the council is having to pay for someone to run the catering. So is customer money now there? How essential is the Police Museum? We know when it was the Police Experience it never made any money and was handed back to the council to pay for. How essential is the Information Centre and Shop? Spending £10,000 on a by-election instead of co-option was seen as spending on inessentials, so why does the same council see spending £252,565 to cover the civic centre deficit, and the council does not know when, or if, it will ever end, does not come under the same category? The utter buffoonery this council exhibits only brings ridicule upon the town. And that cannot be blamed on Cavetown. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

10:25am Sun 22 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
The glossy (Pravda) parish mags do provide some really farcical reading, although KTC meant it to be taken seriously. From the Summer 2011 offering it says under the heading, `Helping protect our town’s heritage`, by the town clerk, Miggy Baileys:

“Keighley Town Centre conservation area was identified as being ‘at risk’ in an English Heritage survey, which prompted a successful application to the Heritage Lottery Fund for Townscape Heritage Initiative funding. Central to the bid was the former police station which KTC has recently bought with the intention of converting it into a much needed civic centre.”

Did you get the last bit, “much needed civic centre.” It's that badly needed no one hardly goes there, except the council. And if you thought that was farcical, read on:

Civic centre is all systems go! By KTC Special Projects Officer Alan Parry.
Corporate and arts events
“A theatre management company will be appointed which will be responsible for providing all events in the Civic Centre. Those events will include contracts for the educational centre of excellence, corporate entertainment, and putting on many different types of shows such as thrillers, mystery nights, fright nights, drama productions, historic events, mock trials, and much, much more. That aspect is aimed at promoting the Civic Centre on a national basis, bringing new corporate money into our economy and, with the experience of professional management and contacts for national exposure, I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.”

Did you get the last bit again: ”I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.” At what though, because that is now the question. Meanwhile it is successfully draining away around a quarter of a million pounds of precept money and there is no end in sight as to when, or how, it will stop.

However, KTC have kept their fairground spirit and though lacking an Aunt Sally, they offer up the next best thing, a Cllr Sally, to issues letters to the K.N so criticisms, which are more than justified, can be thrown.
Sally Walker may I respectfully suggest that if you contemplate issuing more of the letters to the Keighley News you do in fact please contact the Cavetown group of honest open minded Keighlry electorates to ghost write it for you this will ensure that all the facts as listed are indeed correct and relevant as to why we find ourselves with such an incompetent and uncaring council who are not prepared to take into consideration the plight of some of our community. We can offer Elizabeth Mitchell or Graham Forsyth as adequate writers to do this ghost writing I am sure you will agree should you have read their comments that it is the truth backed up by information taken from your own records ,or if you prefer to appeal to the younger generation may I suggest Simon Mitchell ,whilst not at the moment abiding in the country was in deed brought up in the town at a time of Keighley having what we all consider to have had a good council .Should you opt for Simon as I have lost his email no may I again suggest you contact Brian Morris who frequently emails him asking for the number but please a word of warning do not use the foul language that this so called councilor uses. I would state that this offer is based on the condition that you make a statement on the recant allegations of sexual abuse and bribery concerning the council ,I would request an early response as quite obviously are members are at the moment engaged in making the public fully aware of the failings of this council and tour self as MAYOR.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: The glossy (Pravda) parish mags do provide some really farcical reading, although KTC meant it to be taken seriously. From the Summer 2011 offering it says under the heading, `Helping protect our town’s heritage`, by the town clerk, Miggy Baileys: “Keighley Town Centre conservation area was identified as being ‘at risk’ in an English Heritage survey, which prompted a successful application to the Heritage Lottery Fund for Townscape Heritage Initiative funding. Central to the bid was the former police station which KTC has recently bought with the intention of converting it into a much needed civic centre.” Did you get the last bit, “much needed civic centre.” It's that badly needed no one hardly goes there, except the council. And if you thought that was farcical, read on: Civic centre is all systems go! By KTC Special Projects Officer Alan Parry. Corporate and arts events “A theatre management company will be appointed which will be responsible for providing all events in the Civic Centre. Those events will include contracts for the educational centre of excellence, corporate entertainment, and putting on many different types of shows such as thrillers, mystery nights, fright nights, drama productions, historic events, mock trials, and much, much more. That aspect is aimed at promoting the Civic Centre on a national basis, bringing new corporate money into our economy and, with the experience of professional management and contacts for national exposure, I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.” Did you get the last bit again: ”I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.” At what though, because that is now the question. Meanwhile it is successfully draining away around a quarter of a million pounds of precept money and there is no end in sight as to when, or how, it will stop. However, KTC have kept their fairground spirit and though lacking an Aunt Sally, they offer up the next best thing, a Cllr Sally, to issues letters to the K.N so criticisms, which are more than justified, can be thrown.[/p][/quote]Sally Walker may I respectfully suggest that if you contemplate issuing more of the letters to the Keighley News you do in fact please contact the Cavetown group of honest open minded Keighlry electorates to ghost write it for you this will ensure that all the facts as listed are indeed correct and relevant as to why we find ourselves with such an incompetent and uncaring council who are not prepared to take into consideration the plight of some of our community. We can offer Elizabeth Mitchell or Graham Forsyth as adequate writers to do this ghost writing I am sure you will agree should you have read their comments that it is the truth backed up by information taken from your own records ,or if you prefer to appeal to the younger generation may I suggest Simon Mitchell ,whilst not at the moment abiding in the country was in deed brought up in the town at a time of Keighley having what we all consider to have had a good council .Should you opt for Simon as I have lost his email no may I again suggest you contact Brian Morris who frequently emails him asking for the number but please a word of warning do not use the foul language that this so called councilor uses. I would state that this offer is based on the condition that you make a statement on the recant allegations of sexual abuse and bribery concerning the council ,I would request an early response as quite obviously are members are at the moment engaged in making the public fully aware of the failings of this council and tour self as MAYOR. Ian-Holt Roberts

10:58am Sun 22 Dec 13

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Ian you are correct. Brother Morris does indeed have my email contact details. He contacted me recently, immediately after I suggested to Badgergate that he should check his emails.
Although you have offered mayor Walker sound advice Ian, I am afraid it was unnecessary as Sally Walker is already in receipt of my email address. as I communicated with her via her .gov.uk address as recent as the 20th December 2013.
This correspondence was to supply additional information regarding the actions of Brother Morris and to supply evidence that he had failed to uphold the values of The Craft and to ask her to also take this under consideration along with the Formal Complaint I put to her on the 2nd July 2013 re Freemason Morris.
Obviously I do not hold out much hope to a speedy response as I have yet to hear from her on my original Foraml Complaint of over 5 months ago.

Perhaps she fails to see the significance of the Letter from the Grand Provincial Secretary in that it does display my patience in these matters and also that I am always considering my alternatives when it comes to resolving these issues.

Cavendo Tutus

Tick Tock
Simon Mitchell
Ian you are correct. Brother Morris does indeed have my email contact details. He contacted me recently, immediately after I suggested to Badgergate that he should check his emails. Although you have offered mayor Walker sound advice Ian, I am afraid it was unnecessary as Sally Walker is already in receipt of my email address. as I communicated with her via her .gov.uk address as recent as the 20th December 2013. This correspondence was to supply additional information regarding the actions of Brother Morris and to supply evidence that he had failed to uphold the values of The Craft and to ask her to also take this under consideration along with the Formal Complaint I put to her on the 2nd July 2013 re Freemason Morris. Obviously I do not hold out much hope to a speedy response as I have yet to hear from her on my original Foraml Complaint of over 5 months ago. Perhaps she fails to see the significance of the Letter from the Grand Provincial Secretary in that it does display my patience in these matters and also that I am always considering my alternatives when it comes to resolving these issues. Cavendo Tutus Tick Tock Simon Mitchell Always a 708 Skinhead

12:20pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

More KTC hypocrisy from the April 2009 glossy (Pravda) parish mag.

‘Stealth tax’ on voting

“WHAT is the hard-cash cost of grass roots level democracy – council tax-payers’
being able to vote – in Keighley? It is a frighteningly large bill...which could run to around £100,000 for the next full town council election.
And from now on it is due to be paid entirely by residents through the Town Council precept element of their council tax.”

“Obviously we are applying pressure wherever we can to get this punitive decision reversed,” said
KTC Finance Committee Chair Cllr John Philip. “It amounts to a stealth tax, a move enabling Bradford Council to keep its council tax increase down by forcing the people of Keighley to pay much larger bills.”

And elections are held every four years are they not? So that works out at £25,000 per year, which we do all agrees is a great deal of money to find each year from the precept, and what is the civic centre costing per year? Ah yes, around £250,000.00 So is not KTC “ forcing the people of Keighley to pay much larger bills.” in order to keep it open?

And who's fault is that? Not Cavetown's. Tick Tock
More KTC hypocrisy from the April 2009 glossy (Pravda) parish mag. ‘Stealth tax’ on voting “WHAT is the hard-cash cost of grass roots level democracy – council tax-payers’ being able to vote – in Keighley? It is a frighteningly large bill...which could run to around £100,000 for the next full town council election. And from now on it is due to be paid entirely by residents through the Town Council precept element of their council tax.” “Obviously we are applying pressure wherever we can to get this punitive decision reversed,” said KTC Finance Committee Chair Cllr John Philip. “It amounts to a stealth tax, a move enabling Bradford Council to keep its council tax increase down by forcing the people of Keighley to pay much larger bills.” And elections are held every four years are they not? So that works out at £25,000 per year, which we do all agrees is a great deal of money to find each year from the precept, and what is the civic centre costing per year? Ah yes, around £250,000.00 So is not KTC “ forcing the people of Keighley to pay much larger bills.” in order to keep it open? And who's fault is that? Not Cavetown's. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

1:38pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Sally Walker I do not think that you will be in the least bit interested but the latest figures given in the keighley news web page to day says ,nearly 190 employees and self employed workers have been hit by the collapse of Fuzzwire .whilst you and your council friends are sitting down to eat you Christmas lunch no doubt trying to think of a figure to increase the precept by just think of what this loss of jobs will mean to these families .Having been made redundant twice during my working days it is not pleasant and I can assure you that every penny does count .That being the case wake up to the fact that the people of this town are hurting stop being so stubborn and blind to our needs and cut the costs not increase the precept .
Sally Walker I do not think that you will be in the least bit interested but the latest figures given in the keighley news web page to day says ,nearly 190 employees and self employed workers have been hit by the collapse of Fuzzwire .whilst you and your council friends are sitting down to eat you Christmas lunch no doubt trying to think of a figure to increase the precept by just think of what this loss of jobs will mean to these families .Having been made redundant twice during my working days it is not pleasant and I can assure you that every penny does count .That being the case wake up to the fact that the people of this town are hurting stop being so stubborn and blind to our needs and cut the costs not increase the precept . Ian-Holt Roberts

1:52pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

More from the KTC Summer 2013 glossy (Pravda) parish mag

Starting it's first full season, Keighley's new police museum is pulling in the people.
If Keighley's new police museum's success is bums on seats – or people in the cells – it is making a flying start.”

“The museum and forensic science centre is intended to become a regional and in part national and international, visitor attraction.”

Is it still intended to be self-financing as Keighley parishioners were promised? How much money towards being self-financing did it make with all those bums on the seats?

“Locally it played a starring role in Go Local Sunday, back in April, when it attracted some 400 visitors - many of whom said they will be back later with paying friends and relatives.”

“Go Local Sunday is a joint venture in which numerous visitor attractions across the Worth Valley kick of their season with a `free for local people` day.”

In other words, parishioner are still having to pay for it. It will be interesting to see how many do return with paying friends and relative to help ease the financial burden placed by KTC on parishioners.

It could be Keighley needs fewer bums on seats in the council chamber. Tick Tock
More from the KTC Summer 2013 glossy (Pravda) parish mag Starting it's first full season, Keighley's new police museum is pulling in the people. If Keighley's new police museum's success is bums on seats – or people in the cells – it is making a flying start.” “The museum and forensic science centre is intended to become a regional and in part national and international, visitor attraction.” Is it still intended to be self-financing as Keighley parishioners were promised? How much money towards being self-financing did it make with all those bums on the seats? “Locally it played a starring role in Go Local Sunday, back in April, when it attracted some 400 visitors - many of whom said they will be back later with paying friends and relatives.” “Go Local Sunday is a joint venture in which numerous visitor attractions across the Worth Valley kick of their season with a `free for local people` day.” In other words, parishioner are still having to pay for it. It will be interesting to see how many do return with paying friends and relative to help ease the financial burden placed by KTC on parishioners. It could be Keighley needs fewer bums on seats in the council chamber. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

3:16pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

LADIES AND GENTLMEN, THE CIVIC CENTRE.

K.N. Thursday 3rd June 2010.Council wants to buy old cop shop (Keighley scheme) Alan Parry.
“believed the cost of buying and running the building could be covered, with profits reinvested for future development and community projects.”

K.N. Thursday 17th June 2010.Cost of civic centre plans kept under wraps. Cllr John Philip.
“insists Keighley people should not see an increase on the precept, the annual tax they pay to the town council.”
“It would hopefully be a self-financing venture.”
“We envisage that the income it generates will pay off the lump sum over a period of time.”
“The worst-case scenario would be that we use existing budgets to prop it up.”

FINANCE COMMITTEE minutes. Wednesday 7 JULY 2010. Alan Parry
“the franchise fees will cover the cost of the interest on the loan and an excess of a minimum of £71,000 per annum which can be used for capital repayment, reinvestment, investment etc.”
“Business Plan has been created using the maximum bills and minimum income to provide figures that are ‘worst case’. These figures do not include income from profit share or marketing.”


K.N. Thursday 22nd July 2010.Council is to borrow £1.1m for police site. Alan Parry
“explained the venture should be self-financing, with income provided by the businesses and social groups which would use the building.”
“stressed the old police station’s purchase would not require an increase in the town council’s precept”
“the cost of the project had been calculated by assuming a minimum potential income and maximum possible expenditure. He said even these estimates showed the proposals would be profitable.”


Summer 2011 parish mag. Alan Parry
“I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.”

K.N. Sunday 14th August 2011.£1.1m project is an arresting development. Alan Parry
“expected to attract visitors from all over the UK .”
“It is a great asset for Keighley.”
“The whole scheme is designed to support the community.”
“theatre management company would manage the museum, education centre, corporate and eating facilities. He said they would pay the running costs and had agreed a profit-share deal with the town council.”

Spring 2012 parish mag. Cllr John Philip.
“It won’t cost the precept (the money local householders pay to KTC each year for its services) payers a penny”
“Thanks to the way it is funded it is already financially self-sufficient – a win win situation for everyone.”

CLLR SALLY WALKER. WHY THE MASSIVE DEFICIT? WHY THE NEED FOR THE 72.6% PRECEPT HIKE? THE AUDITING COSTS ARE ALSO CAUSED BY THE COUNCIL AS IT IS THE COUNCILS MALADMINISTRATION (L.G.O definition) THAT IS BEING INVESTIGATED. WHY IS THE COUNCIL TRYING TO BLAME CAVETOWN FOR ITS EVER INCREASING DEMANDS FOR MONEY?

Tick Tock
LADIES AND GENTLMEN, THE CIVIC CENTRE. K.N. Thursday 3rd June 2010.Council wants to buy old cop shop (Keighley scheme) Alan Parry. “believed the cost of buying and running the building could be covered, with profits reinvested for future development and community projects.” K.N. Thursday 17th June 2010.Cost of civic centre plans kept under wraps. Cllr John Philip. “insists Keighley people should not see an increase on the precept, the annual tax they pay to the town council.” “It would hopefully be a self-financing venture.” “We envisage that the income it generates will pay off the lump sum over a period of time.” “The worst-case scenario would be that we use existing budgets to prop it up.” FINANCE COMMITTEE minutes. Wednesday 7 JULY 2010. Alan Parry “the franchise fees will cover the cost of the interest on the loan and an excess of a minimum of £71,000 per annum which can be used for capital repayment, reinvestment, investment etc.” “Business Plan has been created using the maximum bills and minimum income to provide figures that are ‘worst case’. These figures do not include income from profit share or marketing.” K.N. Thursday 22nd July 2010.Council is to borrow £1.1m for police site. Alan Parry “explained the venture should be self-financing, with income provided by the businesses and social groups which would use the building.” “stressed the old police station’s purchase would not require an increase in the town council’s precept” “the cost of the project had been calculated by assuming a minimum potential income and maximum possible expenditure. He said even these estimates showed the proposals would be profitable.” Summer 2011 parish mag. Alan Parry “I am confident it will be ultimately very successful.” K.N. Sunday 14th August 2011.£1.1m project is an arresting development. Alan Parry “expected to attract visitors from all over the UK .” “It is a great asset for Keighley.” “The whole scheme is designed to support the community.” “theatre management company would manage the museum, education centre, corporate and eating facilities. He said they would pay the running costs and had agreed a profit-share deal with the town council.” Spring 2012 parish mag. Cllr John Philip. “It won’t cost the precept (the money local householders pay to KTC each year for its services) payers a penny” “Thanks to the way it is funded it is already financially self-sufficient – a win win situation for everyone.” CLLR SALLY WALKER. WHY THE MASSIVE DEFICIT? WHY THE NEED FOR THE 72.6% PRECEPT HIKE? THE AUDITING COSTS ARE ALSO CAUSED BY THE COUNCIL AS IT IS THE COUNCILS MALADMINISTRATION (L.G.O definition) THAT IS BEING INVESTIGATED. WHY IS THE COUNCIL TRYING TO BLAME CAVETOWN FOR ITS EVER INCREASING DEMANDS FOR MONEY? Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

5:17pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Graham Forsyth says...

Maybe Cllr mayor Sally Walker should read this.

Extracts are taken from the Audit Commission's Report in the public interest on the Kirby Muxloe Parish Council Audit 2011/12

5 The Council is responsible for the use of public funds raised by compulsory taxation. It is accountable to citizens as taxpayers and users of Council services for how it uses those funds.

9 Local government electors have a right to inspect councils’ accounts and to make ‘objections’, asking auditors to exercise their formal powers. Auditors have a duty in undertaking their audits to take into account information brought to their attention.

12 But the Council has a duty to conduct its affairs in the right way – so that it complies with the law, complies with its own procedures, accounts for its resources, protects the resources entrusted to it and, vitally, can be seen to have done so.

13 Transparency about governance provides reassurance to citizens. And it protects councillors and officers of the Council from allegations of impropriety.

14 I am concerned that the Council has, in many areas, failed to establish and secure the standards of governance and accountability that citizens have the right to expect.


Note No 13. And what did the investigative report undertaken by Cllr Pedley into Financial and Staffing Irregularities find?

6.5
Throughout this investigation it has become increasingly apparent that a culture of
concealment, unaccountability and complacency has been allowed to develop.
Unacceptable management practices and a lack of financial responsibility by both the M&S Committee and the RFO have undoubtedly preceded this investigation.


The blame lies with KTC, not Cavetown, and as this report done by the Audit Commission has more than clearly explained, “electors have a right to inspect councils’ accounts and to make ‘objections.”

Tick Tock
Maybe Cllr mayor Sally Walker should read this. Extracts are taken from the Audit Commission's Report in the public interest on the Kirby Muxloe Parish Council Audit 2011/12 5 The Council is responsible for the use of public funds raised by compulsory taxation. It is accountable to citizens as taxpayers and users of Council services for how it uses those funds. 9 Local government electors have a right to inspect councils’ accounts and to make ‘objections’, asking auditors to exercise their formal powers. Auditors have a duty in undertaking their audits to take into account information brought to their attention. 12 But the Council has a duty to conduct its affairs in the right way – so that it complies with the law, complies with its own procedures, accounts for its resources, protects the resources entrusted to it and, vitally, can be seen to have done so. 13 Transparency about governance provides reassurance to citizens. And it protects councillors and officers of the Council from allegations of impropriety. 14 I am concerned that the Council has, in many areas, failed to establish and secure the standards of governance and accountability that citizens have the right to expect. Note No 13. And what did the investigative report undertaken by Cllr Pedley into Financial and Staffing Irregularities find? 6.5 Throughout this investigation it has become increasingly apparent that a culture of concealment, unaccountability and complacency has been allowed to develop. Unacceptable management practices and a lack of financial responsibility by both the M&S Committee and the RFO have undoubtedly preceded this investigation. The blame lies with KTC, not Cavetown, and as this report done by the Audit Commission has more than clearly explained, “electors have a right to inspect councils’ accounts and to make ‘objections.” Tick Tock Graham Forsyth

5:33pm Sun 22 Dec 13

badgergate says...

Graham Forsyth says...

Riddlesden Needs it's Own Parish Council

As a resident of Riddlesden and having been engaged for the last three years with both the local Town Ward Councillors and the District Ward Councillors over congestion issues at the end of Compeigne Avenue, which still remain unresolved, here is my experience of Keighley Town Council and their Ward Councillors.

Town Ward Councillors for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward, Cllr George Edge to the best of my knowledge has never been engaged in helping to resolve this issue, despite my having contacted him by email. I now hear he has suffered poor health for some time and is stepping down.

Town Ward Councillor Andrea Walker for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward has never offered her support to the residents of Compeigne Avenue regarding this issue. Such was here detachment from the residents that we made an official complaint to Keighley Town Council regarding her lack of support. I myself attended a meeting at Keighley Town Hall between Cllr Margaret Ward and Town Clerk Miggy Bailey to try and resolve our complaint. Failing to do so, I then took our complaint to Bradford's Standards Committee.

Out of three Town Ward councillors for our area we only had one Town Ward Councillor, Mick Westerman, actively engaged in helping residents of Compeigne Avenue.

On February 5th 2009 I attended full Keighley Town Council meeting to ask
Keighley Town Council to write a strongly worded letter to the District Council, asking for someone to come and see for themselves the problems Riddlesden residents were having to face. This was an opportunity for Keighley Town Council to give it's full support to the people of Riddlesden, it chose not to, no letter was sent.

I ask myself of Riddlesden had it's own Parish Council if it would have been as lacking in support and if a Riddlesden Parish Council would have left a ward as unrepresented. And it goes without saying Riddlesden was still having to pay the full amount of precept money.

In light of my own personal experience with Keighley Town Council, I would fully support Riddlesden having it's own Parish Council and being in charge of it's own affairs.


KN 5:32pm Sat 30 Jan 10
Graham Forsyth says... Riddlesden Needs it's Own Parish Council As a resident of Riddlesden and having been engaged for the last three years with both the local Town Ward Councillors and the District Ward Councillors over congestion issues at the end of Compeigne Avenue, which still remain unresolved, here is my experience of Keighley Town Council and their Ward Councillors. Town Ward Councillors for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward, Cllr George Edge to the best of my knowledge has never been engaged in helping to resolve this issue, despite my having contacted him by email. I now hear he has suffered poor health for some time and is stepping down. Town Ward Councillor Andrea Walker for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward has never offered her support to the residents of Compeigne Avenue regarding this issue. Such was here detachment from the residents that we made an official complaint to Keighley Town Council regarding her lack of support. I myself attended a meeting at Keighley Town Hall between Cllr Margaret Ward and Town Clerk Miggy Bailey to try and resolve our complaint. Failing to do so, I then took our complaint to Bradford's Standards Committee. Out of three Town Ward councillors for our area we only had one Town Ward Councillor, Mick Westerman, actively engaged in helping residents of Compeigne Avenue. On February 5th 2009 I attended full Keighley Town Council meeting to ask Keighley Town Council to write a strongly worded letter to the District Council, asking for someone to come and see for themselves the problems Riddlesden residents were having to face. This was an opportunity for Keighley Town Council to give it's full support to the people of Riddlesden, it chose not to, no letter was sent. I ask myself of Riddlesden had it's own Parish Council if it would have been as lacking in support and if a Riddlesden Parish Council would have left a ward as unrepresented. And it goes without saying Riddlesden was still having to pay the full amount of precept money. In light of my own personal experience with Keighley Town Council, I would fully support Riddlesden having it's own Parish Council and being in charge of it's own affairs. KN 5:32pm Sat 30 Jan 10 badgergate

6:07pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Gobbag Vooar says...

badgergate wrote:
Graham Forsyth says...

Riddlesden Needs it's Own Parish Council

As a resident of Riddlesden and having been engaged for the last three years with both the local Town Ward Councillors and the District Ward Councillors over congestion issues at the end of Compeigne Avenue, which still remain unresolved, here is my experience of Keighley Town Council and their Ward Councillors.

Town Ward Councillors for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward, Cllr George Edge to the best of my knowledge has never been engaged in helping to resolve this issue, despite my having contacted him by email. I now hear he has suffered poor health for some time and is stepping down.

Town Ward Councillor Andrea Walker for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward has never offered her support to the residents of Compeigne Avenue regarding this issue. Such was here detachment from the residents that we made an official complaint to Keighley Town Council regarding her lack of support. I myself attended a meeting at Keighley Town Hall between Cllr Margaret Ward and Town Clerk Miggy Bailey to try and resolve our complaint. Failing to do so, I then took our complaint to Bradford's Standards Committee.

Out of three Town Ward councillors for our area we only had one Town Ward Councillor, Mick Westerman, actively engaged in helping residents of Compeigne Avenue.

On February 5th 2009 I attended full Keighley Town Council meeting to ask
Keighley Town Council to write a strongly worded letter to the District Council, asking for someone to come and see for themselves the problems Riddlesden residents were having to face. This was an opportunity for Keighley Town Council to give it's full support to the people of Riddlesden, it chose not to, no letter was sent.

I ask myself of Riddlesden had it's own Parish Council if it would have been as lacking in support and if a Riddlesden Parish Council would have left a ward as unrepresented. And it goes without saying Riddlesden was still having to pay the full amount of precept money.

In light of my own personal experience with Keighley Town Council, I would fully support Riddlesden having it's own Parish Council and being in charge of it's own affairs.


KN 5:32pm Sat 30 Jan 10
I would certainly think that the people of Riddlesden and Stockbridge would welcome anything better than the mess that your council has left them in. They should have taken the opportunity, the latest news from your council is unbelievable, and is an affront to the public at large.
Councillor, what about an apology to the people of this town for letting them down so badly, what about accepting blame for the mess that you, and those in your council have created. and to round off the abuse and insults to the very people who have real concerns as to when this on going drain on their cash will ever end.
Grow Up Badgergate.
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: Graham Forsyth says... Riddlesden Needs it's Own Parish Council As a resident of Riddlesden and having been engaged for the last three years with both the local Town Ward Councillors and the District Ward Councillors over congestion issues at the end of Compeigne Avenue, which still remain unresolved, here is my experience of Keighley Town Council and their Ward Councillors. Town Ward Councillors for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward, Cllr George Edge to the best of my knowledge has never been engaged in helping to resolve this issue, despite my having contacted him by email. I now hear he has suffered poor health for some time and is stepping down. Town Ward Councillor Andrea Walker for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward has never offered her support to the residents of Compeigne Avenue regarding this issue. Such was here detachment from the residents that we made an official complaint to Keighley Town Council regarding her lack of support. I myself attended a meeting at Keighley Town Hall between Cllr Margaret Ward and Town Clerk Miggy Bailey to try and resolve our complaint. Failing to do so, I then took our complaint to Bradford's Standards Committee. Out of three Town Ward councillors for our area we only had one Town Ward Councillor, Mick Westerman, actively engaged in helping residents of Compeigne Avenue. On February 5th 2009 I attended full Keighley Town Council meeting to ask Keighley Town Council to write a strongly worded letter to the District Council, asking for someone to come and see for themselves the problems Riddlesden residents were having to face. This was an opportunity for Keighley Town Council to give it's full support to the people of Riddlesden, it chose not to, no letter was sent. I ask myself of Riddlesden had it's own Parish Council if it would have been as lacking in support and if a Riddlesden Parish Council would have left a ward as unrepresented. And it goes without saying Riddlesden was still having to pay the full amount of precept money. In light of my own personal experience with Keighley Town Council, I would fully support Riddlesden having it's own Parish Council and being in charge of it's own affairs. KN 5:32pm Sat 30 Jan 10[/p][/quote]I would certainly think that the people of Riddlesden and Stockbridge would welcome anything better than the mess that your council has left them in. They should have taken the opportunity, the latest news from your council is unbelievable, and is an affront to the public at large. Councillor, what about an apology to the people of this town for letting them down so badly, what about accepting blame for the mess that you, and those in your council have created. and to round off the abuse and insults to the very people who have real concerns as to when this on going drain on their cash will ever end. Grow Up Badgergate. Gobbag Vooar

6:52pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

badgergate wrote:
Graham Forsyth says...

Riddlesden Needs it's Own Parish Council

As a resident of Riddlesden and having been engaged for the last three years with both the local Town Ward Councillors and the District Ward Councillors over congestion issues at the end of Compeigne Avenue, which still remain unresolved, here is my experience of Keighley Town Council and their Ward Councillors.

Town Ward Councillors for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward, Cllr George Edge to the best of my knowledge has never been engaged in helping to resolve this issue, despite my having contacted him by email. I now hear he has suffered poor health for some time and is stepping down.

Town Ward Councillor Andrea Walker for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward has never offered her support to the residents of Compeigne Avenue regarding this issue. Such was here detachment from the residents that we made an official complaint to Keighley Town Council regarding her lack of support. I myself attended a meeting at Keighley Town Hall between Cllr Margaret Ward and Town Clerk Miggy Bailey to try and resolve our complaint. Failing to do so, I then took our complaint to Bradford's Standards Committee.

Out of three Town Ward councillors for our area we only had one Town Ward Councillor, Mick Westerman, actively engaged in helping residents of Compeigne Avenue.

On February 5th 2009 I attended full Keighley Town Council meeting to ask
Keighley Town Council to write a strongly worded letter to the District Council, asking for someone to come and see for themselves the problems Riddlesden residents were having to face. This was an opportunity for Keighley Town Council to give it's full support to the people of Riddlesden, it chose not to, no letter was sent.

I ask myself of Riddlesden had it's own Parish Council if it would have been as lacking in support and if a Riddlesden Parish Council would have left a ward as unrepresented. And it goes without saying Riddlesden was still having to pay the full amount of precept money.

In light of my own personal experience with Keighley Town Council, I would fully support Riddlesden having it's own Parish Council and being in charge of it's own affairs.


KN 5:32pm Sat 30 Jan 10
I NORMALLY FIND MYSELF AGREEING WITH GRAHAM BUT I CAN NOT DO ON THIS OCCASION THE LAST THING STOCKBRIDGE NEEDS IS ITS OWN COUNCIL IN FACT IT WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF IT WAS COUNCIL FREE,AS WOULD WE ALL. UNFORTUNATELY THE TYPE OF PERSON WHO DESIRES THE TITLE OF COUNCILORS OR MAGISTRATE ARE PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY KNOW BETTER THAN WE OURSELVES TO RUN OUR OWN LIVES ,THEY REMIND ME OF SCHOOLTEACHERS ,IN FACT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW JUST HOW MANY SCHOOLTEACHERS OPT TO GO INTO BEING A COUNCILOR JUST TO CARRY ON THE BULLYING THEY WERE USED TO WHILST BEING TEACHERS .THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT ALL COUNCILORS WERE TEACHERS BADGERGATE FOR INSTANCE WAS A FRYER OF FISH AND BY ALL ACCOUNTS A POOR ONE AS MY MATE SAID P[PEOPLE WOULD TRAVEL MILES AND MILES TO AVOID USING HIS ,IT IS NICE TO KNOW THAT HIS ABILITY TO ACT AS A GOOD COUNCILOR MATCHES HIS ABILITY AS A FRYER OF FISH .
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: Graham Forsyth says... Riddlesden Needs it's Own Parish Council As a resident of Riddlesden and having been engaged for the last three years with both the local Town Ward Councillors and the District Ward Councillors over congestion issues at the end of Compeigne Avenue, which still remain unresolved, here is my experience of Keighley Town Council and their Ward Councillors. Town Ward Councillors for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward, Cllr George Edge to the best of my knowledge has never been engaged in helping to resolve this issue, despite my having contacted him by email. I now hear he has suffered poor health for some time and is stepping down. Town Ward Councillor Andrea Walker for the Riddlesden and Stockbridge Ward has never offered her support to the residents of Compeigne Avenue regarding this issue. Such was here detachment from the residents that we made an official complaint to Keighley Town Council regarding her lack of support. I myself attended a meeting at Keighley Town Hall between Cllr Margaret Ward and Town Clerk Miggy Bailey to try and resolve our complaint. Failing to do so, I then took our complaint to Bradford's Standards Committee. Out of three Town Ward councillors for our area we only had one Town Ward Councillor, Mick Westerman, actively engaged in helping residents of Compeigne Avenue. On February 5th 2009 I attended full Keighley Town Council meeting to ask Keighley Town Council to write a strongly worded letter to the District Council, asking for someone to come and see for themselves the problems Riddlesden residents were having to face. This was an opportunity for Keighley Town Council to give it's full support to the people of Riddlesden, it chose not to, no letter was sent. I ask myself of Riddlesden had it's own Parish Council if it would have been as lacking in support and if a Riddlesden Parish Council would have left a ward as unrepresented. And it goes without saying Riddlesden was still having to pay the full amount of precept money. In light of my own personal experience with Keighley Town Council, I would fully support Riddlesden having it's own Parish Council and being in charge of it's own affairs. KN 5:32pm Sa