News

community activist Kazek Lokuciewski is unhappy at a u-turn by the council which meant he couldn't film the South Wokingham Community Forum
advertisement

Blogger banned from filming public forum

By Douglas Coulter
February 12, 2013

A blogger's plea to video a community forum was turned down by council bosses but has helped opened the debate on the issue.

Videographer and community activist Kazek Lokuciewski was initially given the nod to film the South Wokingham Community Forum last Wednesday to share with residents unable to make the meeting.

But Wokingham Borough Council later withdrew the offer, saying further discussion about the potential impact on the meetings was required.

Mr Lokuciewski, of Tangley Drive, who intended to share the film via his YouTube blog and social media, said: “The meetings are at 6pm, which is not great timing for people with families.

“There’s a lack of public engagement with the council so as much as possible should be done to make it easier.

“I was prepared to share it unedited and having the meeting available on YouTube would allow people to view it whenever they like and make the council more transparent.”

Councillor Prue Bray, leader of Wokingham Liberal Democrats, said: “I can’t understand what the reluctance is. We would prefer a much more open culture. We need to open up democracy and not shut people out of it.”

But Wokingham Borough Council head of sustainable communities Josie Wragg said: “We are interested in Mr Lokuciewski’s idea to promote the content of the forums through video and we are keen to discuss ways of letting more people know about what is discussed at them. We do, however, need to be sure that those involved in the forums are comfortable with what we do.”

The potential for communicating council business live has rocketed following the explosion of social media, with councillors able to Tweet from the chamber but making and distributing video still remains controversial.

Cllr Rob Stanton, deputy leader of the council said: “I personally don’t have any objection. However, we have to make sure people behave in a responsible manner.”

Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, believes councils’ should let bloggers or hyperlocal news sites stream meetings online to help improve public scrutiny.

The forum offers residents the chance to have their say on the latest news about Wokingham’s Strategic Development Locations (SDLs), areas earmarked for more than 10,000 homes by 2026.

Mrs Wragg added: “Wokingham Borough Council wants to involve as wide a range of people in discussions on the major developments across the borough as it can and is considering the pros and cons of making the content of the forums more widely available through social media.

“We will continue to try to raise awareness of these important meetings.

“We would urge anybody interested in the forums to attend if possible, but those who cannot attend can send questions and comments on any aspects of the major developments to sdl.forums@wokingham.gov.uk.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (52)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 52

Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

I think the council are missing the point on this issue and at the same time showing themselves a bit behind the curve. It shouldn't be up to the council to dictate to the public whether they can video the people whose wages they are paying and are making decisions on their behalf. Most people these days have devices in their pockets capable of recording video and and audio. It doesn't take a professional videographer with a professional camera and it doesn't need organising. Are you going to throw put people who start to record a council meeting. If so, why? Members of the public attending the meeting are being filmed and recorded at every step around the town centre on CCTV. Do we hear any complaints about that?

Charles Foster Kane
12/02/2013 at 21:39

Cllr Baker - I certainly can understand reasons given around having enough time to alert attendees and ensuring everyone is comfortable with it, and why this resulted in filming not being possible on this occasion.

I side with Kaz though in wondering why it is a business to be pitched for, especially when we have a professional willing and ready to do it without financial benefit and for the good of democracy.

alex_f, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 20:49

Cllr Baker

Please you have my permission to publish any correspondence where "He has been told that we have every intention of filming all the SDL Forums and have even suggested he could "pitch" for the business." because someone is lying.

As a concerned member of the community promoting democracy in the form of video it would as inappropriate for me to seek remuneration for this as it would be for an MP to advise on tax avoidance and speculative trading.

But I will take your statement as you will allow people to film all public meetings in future. YES! One step closer to basic democracy 'Informed'.

I suggest a simple agreement that all meetings must be released in full to avoid misrepresentation venue should give permission on the grounds that the council maintains copyright to insist partial edits are taken down.

So. When is the next one? Family cameras on tripods near the front. Lets go.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 20:22

Full marks to Kaz for only telling part of the story. He has been told that we have every intention of filming all the SDL Forums and have even suggested he could "pitch" for the business. Unfortunately we simply did not have the time to organise it and we did had some indication of people not being comfortable with this.

Two weeks is simply not time enough to get the Churchs permission and to alert all attendees that we would be filming. Whatever we do we cannot put barriers in place which stops resident participation. So this has to be handled carefully.

Cllr Keith Baker
12/02/2013 at 19:32

If its public you just need permission from the landowner. If the land is publicly owned then no permission is required at all.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 19:06

It's an interesting point about whether you have the right to film at a public meeting or not.

People are often of the wrongly held belief that your permission needs to be obtained to film a person - in a public place, it is perfectly legal and permissible to film people-there is no automatic right to have a veto on this.

Whether this extends to a public meeting in a closed room - well I am sure there is someone here with more knowledge of these matters than me.

HatsOfDoom
12/02/2013 at 17:32

Ahh Alex / King of diplomacy.

I prefer a stone hammer ;)

Yes on all accounts.

From now on they should add it to all communications regarding meetings where public are welcome.

I do not believe Mrs Wragg will do this willingly. I imagine she places more importance on her relationship with her powerful strategic partners than to the little man and the open and accountable democracy that is required to stop such things as #libor happening again.

Her answers press for relentless discussion and consideration of a very obvious point. One I took up 2 weeks ago. Yet still no answer. She has not resolved this yet with agreeable limitations (sale, edited, copyright ownership).

So is she putting it off and hoping it goes away? Not very bright? Bit busy lately but getting round to it? In which case thanks for the courtesy call! Being bullied by someone further up the chain? I can't think of any more off the top of my head.

Anyone know which ward she is in. I feel some door to door interviews coming on.

Alex. Can you please do some of you magic on this and make it sound more diplomatic? I seem to have started swinging that damned hammer about again.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 17:05

Kaz - you make some very compelling arguments (in the past and below) and I'd certainly be in favour of recorded public meetings.

I do see though where DT is coming from. For this first time where it hasn't been advertised / attendees hadn't been notified, it may be that people arrive and are startled to see they will be 'on film' (especially with your professional equipment! ;-) ).

Are you asking WBC if they can be filmed in the future? There would also be time for them to add 'this may be filmed' into all of the communications (or even as a standard footnote in all future public meetings).

The camera could even possibly just be at the front, so it would show the speakers only, and the audience would only be heard?

alex_f, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 14:16

well, well, well - you seem to be objecting to the exact opposite of what's being said... Mrs Wragg has said 'We are interested in Mr Lokuciewski’s idea', 'We would urge anybody interested in the forums to attend' - I don't understand your objection?

Kaz4Wokingham - absolutely, I agree with your interpretation of the backroom deals and the principles involved. All I'm saying is that people need the chance to adjust; imagine there's an 80-yr-old lady who has been going to these meetings for years and plans to turn up at the next; she might reconsider if it's filmed and decide not to come. She should be told that this change is going to happen - as the meetings were not previously filmed - and then be free to choose whether or not she wants to attend. That courtesy should extend to all involved.

"I think the public are willing to accept that if they turn up and speak it will be shared. " - you think that, but some might not want to. What if, theoretically, 90% of the public in attendance refuse to be filmed? Or all of them? What then? That would be more damaging to the process than doing nothing.

Perhaps these are questions and issues the council wants to consider, before simply saying 'yeah, okay' and being responsible for the consequences (which they would then be criticised for).

Admittedly, it's much more likely that they simply don't want us all to see how awful they are, and that the meetings are a waste of time!

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 13:21

How about when there is any event in a public place and the press are present? The laws of press freedom are there for the sake of accountability.

There is an ever growing sense in Wokingham that the Council and developers do their deals behind closed doors and control the press.

I believe that is the case too.

I think the public are willing to accept that if they turn up and speak it will be shared.

It is time for council representatives in those positions to accept that it is their duty to do so.

Not only that but their duty to demand the same, in advance, of those who hope to do business with them.

The alternative that it is much easier for landowners hoping to make millions just for a planning use change not the actual construction, to benefit if they have invested in sympathetic Councillors as those Councillors have more control over the way the proposals are presented.

This is not a difficult debate in which time is required. The next public meeting is going to be be recorded and made available to the public.

If you are a member of the public who is camera shy just sit at the back.

Councilors and those we do business with. It is our duty to be answerable to the public and we are proud to ensure that we are.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 12:18

Mrs Wragg's comments sum up all that is wrong with politics.

Why should they decide - we live in a democracy!

well, well, well
12/02/2013 at 12:04

Hi Kaz4Wokingham.

The important distinction is that on Question Time, you have a room full of people coming along to a TV programme, listening to people who have been paid to come on TV. I think we should have the right to film public meetings, we just have to be reasonable in making it happen and give people time to consent and prepare.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 11:52

Think of it as like BBC question time.

The camera is not on interested people who just attended to see what is going on. It is on the people asking the questions and the people answering them.

Audio is the main thing. The camera would simply sit at the back of the room as a broad shot. Visitors mostly heard only.

The developers and council representatives who are answering the questions are the only ones who will be facing increased exposure and accountability. But that is what WBC is professing to want at 6pm on a weekday in a room with 50 seats.

The benefit is that impressions they have given or concerns that have been suggested will be recorded in a completely transparent manner.

Disputed opinions in the room over pros and cons that are quickly debated and are unable to be properly minuted will be available for all in a cheap, accessible and captivating manner.

The cost of not having it is more of the same. 50 people with vested interests in a room and 20,000 people wandering what the hell is going on.