HOW RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL SUPPRESSES THE PUBLIC
Campaign Groups used as SCAPEGOATS For RBC to justify hiding all information
Using Public Money to silence us and shield cement industry
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006
To: 'Andrew Gabbitas'
Cc: 'All Councillors';
Subject: RBC seemingly refuse access to information to all Borough and to everyone
Dear Mr Gabbitas
Re: Information requests from Campaign Groups
# Further to the Secret meetings to discuss secret advice and to make a Decision in secret which you justify as "exempt" below:
# Is this Council acting within it powers in refusing to Access to Information to what it describes as unspecified "Campaign Groups"?
# I regard this Decision by the RBC Cabinet as unlawful, and as a blanket means of suppression. It seems it is not just about "Campaign Groups", but is a Decision to hide ALL INFORMATION, using the Campaign Groups as a smoke screen, and as an excuse to hide the information. RBC has made a Decision in the Cabinet to hide completely all the information, NOT JUST from the "loosely described" Campaign Groups, but from EVERYONE.
1. To whom does this term "Campaign Groups" apply?
2. Does it refer to every person in Rugby who asks for copies of documents?
3. To exactly what information are you refusing access?
4. Which Counsel advised RBC that they could lawfully refuse access to information under the FOI Act?
5. What was the cost of this information/advice that it seems was designed merely to prevent the public, that you have described as "Campaign Groups", gaining access to information that RBC (and the EA) wish to hide?
6. What information was given to the Counsel to make him suggest that RBC refuse all access to information?
7. Please provide a definition of "Campaign groups", and a definition of a "private citizen".
8. Please clarify that you are actually refusing ALL access to the information, including any access request made by any of the 90,000 Rugby residents, and any lawyers' requests, and in fact any requests from any other people in the world who might ask, as well as refusing it to the so-called "Campaign Groups".
################################################
From: Andrew Gabbitas
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006
To: L Pallikaropoulos
Cc: All Councillors
Subject: RE: Cabinet Minutes 9th January
Dear Mrs Pallikaropoulos,
"Exempt information" is defined in the Council's Constitution and the Local Government Act 1972. These set out 15 categories of information which are exempt. One of those categories is :
"Any instructions to counsel or any opinion of counsel,(whether or not in connection with any proceedings), and any advice received, information obtained or action taken in connection with:
(a) any legal proceedings by or against the authority; or
(b) the determination of any matter affecting the authority;
whether, in either case ,proceedings have been commenced or are in contemplation."
The report on Information Requests from Campaign Groups concerned an opinion from counsel in connection with this subject. The report, therefore, contained exempt information as defined by the Constitution and the 1972 Act.
From your email I take it that you have obtained a copy of the minutes to which you refer and that I do not need to respond to your earlier email requesting a copy of these.
Andrew Gabbitas
############################################
Subject: Cabinet Minutes 9th January
Dear Mr Gabbitas
Re : Cabinet 9th January 2006 Item 283 Environment Portfolio (page 12 of 13).
I believe this Council is guilty of maladministration. I will ask the Ombudsman to visit the related documents and judge for himself if these are "properly exempt matters".
The purpose of "confidentiality" in Committee proceedings is NOT, and must NEVER, be solely to HIDE the errors, omissions, or failures of Councils, Councillors or officers in relation to their Statutory Duties.
Where confidentiality is claimed the reasons in sensible terms need to be provided; it is NOT proper that the only response should be that X or Y subject IS confidential, or exempt.
All that the RBC has stated is that, in their opinion, this is exempt, and that Cabinet have considered a "private report" of the Environment Portfolio Holder. This has NEVER gone before any Environment, or any other committee, and is merely one person's private view, and Report, (by co-incidence the Chair of the Rugby cement Community Forum?) and recommendation to Cabinet. How have you justified this?
What reasons could this Council possibly have for considering, in secret, the private report of this person?
############################################
Referring to the RBC letter to Lilian of 26th April:
RE: Freedom of Information Requests the Cabinet resolved 9th January 2006 (which is on RBC web site): to REFUSE ALL INFORMATION REQUESTS, "that any further information requests be not individually responded to; But be published on a FAQ list; and only to develop a Frequently Asked Questions list on the web, as resources permit;
This to cover Air Quality Issues and other issues associated with Cemex's local activities."
###########################################
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:31 PM
To: 'Andrew Gabbitas'
Subject: Cabinet Minutes
Dear Mr Gabbitas
The Minutes of the Cabinet Agenda January 9th 2006 item you refer to in your letter of 26th April are on the RBC web site, but the Committee Report is not on there. Could you please tell me how to access it on the web, or send it to me?
###########################################
3 comments:
They do not need Lilian to make laughing stocks of them, they are perfectly capable of doing that themselves.
And that is about all they are capable of. And practising deception and maladministration, all at public expense and at the expense of our health. Surely they cannot refuse Access to Information from any lawyers request, or are they really above the Law?
Disgusted of Lawford
Beware you Juvenile Delinquent Lilian you!! Before you know it this Authoritarian, Totalitarian government will have an ASBO served on you, if you keep on and on and on asking questions. This government, that masquerades as a democracy, will SILENCE all dissenters. You better be careful. You have been warned!!
;)
HA HA HA!!
RBC will become laughing stock of the whole country - as if it is not already.
Thanks for the advice! So the government can let 1,000 illegal immigrant criminals out loose to re-offend, and murder, and you suggest I, a stoic pillar of the community, could get an ASBO - what for standing up in the Council Chamber and speaking the truth, and for asking questions repeatedly until I get an answer? Come on now, even they are not that stupid as to think of such a thing? They did write me some warning letters after I spoke the truth at the Council meeting, and now they are delaying on allowing me to see the data they hold on me under the Data Proetction Act. I applied on February 24th and they have still not provided it. They have taken legal advice on how to stop all questioning, and in order to cover-up their wrong doing, but do you suggest they would actually go so far as take out an ASBO to silence dissenters? They have squandered public money on finding out what they can legally do to avoid telling the truth, and it seems, surprise surprise, that they cannot "legally" lie, cover up and refuse access to information - but they are DETERMINED to try!
In one RBC letter I have here they try to excuse their failure to follow due process, and to cover-up the possibility that the RBC officers, who are taking all our money, are possibly not actually trained, nor qualified, and do not actually know what they are supposed to be doing, or what the Legislation is, and in answer to why they "mislead" the public over the IPPC application, by calling all these "tyre burning" meetings they say this:
"The information in this current request is extensive and relates to issues dealt with 5 years ago. The Council's stance on the issue of tyre burning reflected the public concern at the time and was a considered balanced approach to the issue."
The point is that the Consultation "at the time" was supposed to be part of a due process which has legislation - it is not for Rugby Borough Council to try to guess what they were supposed to be doing, and to play it by ear, and to make it up as they go along, or now to seek to blame the public for the Council's own maladministration. The Consultation should have been a FULL INVESTIGATION into the WHOLE OPERATING PERMIT for the plant, but RBC and the EA and WCC and Rugby Cement HIJACKED the application and HID it as best they could. They hid the TRUE IPPC application (admittedly we found out after when it was too late that it was on the files in RBC offices) but they gave out what they called the Application, which was in fact only a "tyre burning" application in order that people would not ask any questions about HOW the plant ever got any IPC operating Permit in the first place - WITHOUT any public consultation. They hid it because they had all been acting UNLAWFULLY and they did not want this to come out. They hid the dispersion models and H1 assessment as well which the public should have had access to. They refused OVER and OVER again to give them to us. And they persist in this deception now, to the bitter end. They will not appreciate the word "lie" being used but they do not like the truth. We can mince about, and try to find a nice inoffesive way to tell the truth, and to call it "misinform", but the truth is they have LIED! A lie needs more lies to cover up, and so they go on. RBC Environmental Health Department deliberately did this to the public of Rugby to hide its part in the cover-up. Councillor Kathy Hayter was advised to call a "Tyre Burning meeting", (marathon lasted five hours) and was told that the public can ONLY comment on the tyre burning "add on" to the works and NOT on any aspect of its operating. The Agency said the same: "no, no, you cannot talk about the cement works, ONLY about the difference between "normal operation" with coal, and the tyres operation." They spent so much energy, time and public money trying to prove to us that the tyres wil make no difference, as a smoke screen.(note petcoke did not feature at that time in any discussions, which is why we were all shocked to find it mentioned on virtually every page of the Decision Document and in the IPPC Permit when it was eventually granted.)
In the most truthful exact way I can put it, without being like them: THEY LIED! and go on "LYING!" And now you suggest an ASBO on me? They will be laughed off the face of the earth. The whole lot of them: officers and councillors are covering up this huge abuse of Rugby people. There are 47 Councillors who are all hiding it, and the whole RBC office including their Chief Executive, their lawyers, and their monitoring officer. They are prepared to "misinform" "mislead" and consider taking legal action against ordinary citizens, against anyone at all, in order to hide the HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME they have carried out! Rugby Borough Council has abused, and continues to abuse Rugby residents. They are what can only be called "partners in crime" with other Agencies!
An ASBO should be taken out on all of them, Councillors and Officers, and the Environment Agency while we are at it: they should all be banned from approaching Rugby, and banned from further damaging the town!
Post a Comment