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 50 of 52

1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

Oh no it won't. Oh yes it will. The sods would wriggle out of it even if you had it hologrammed in 3D and a sworn affidavit from the queen. I have just received a circular called The Earley Focus from the Lib Dems. What a load of shifty, twisty fact bending blighters they are. If more followed our beliefs and stopped believing them it may force them to change. However i don't think videoing them will change them, sadly it will probably encourage them but i think i may be coming round to your way of thinking.

parlovero, Earley
17/02/2013 at 18:38

No. Having undisputable evidence will help a little.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
16/02/2013 at 19:32

I admire your fortitude but i feel you are sadly lacking in certain areas. Do you actually still believe any word ever spoken by a politician?

parlovero, Earley
16/02/2013 at 08:34

They are. Now go and find them discuss them and be confident all the points made like 'will not build on Elms field' are minuted.#HardWork Just film it and upload it. Easy 4 all.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
15/02/2013 at 19:21

If the informaion were put on the council website then the presentations could also be put on the web. I am aware that there are a few who do not have access to the internet but they could be circulated by letter if they so wished. It is not necessary to video all meetings.

parlovero, Earley
15/02/2013 at 16:04

Regarding my 'aspirations' I offered to purchase the equipment for the council and that one of the councillor's pop it on a tripod and hit record but was refused. I agree audio is more than half the battle. It is only when discussing things that are on a presentation screen that key information is lost If the camera was to face the presentation screen then the public would the access to the information they need in a consumable manner.

Regarding executive meetings I would love people to see how cold and authoritative they are. Just 3 minutes of pre written questions being the only public involvement as an executive who are not randomly selected from the Cllr pool. Knowing it was on camera might make the answers to the questions more accountable.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
15/02/2013 at 14:36

Why not just tape it and make the audio record available for general release via the council website. All meetings could be done this way. If you wish to give your name you can, if you don't then you don't have to. It is totally unecessary to film a meeting. There may be people who would not go if they were seen on a you tube blog. I feel this is more about the aspirations of an amateur video producer than council openess and information flow.

parlovero, Earley
15/02/2013 at 10:33

Cllr Baker. We are still waiting. Will you insist that strategic business partners and council reprentatives attend filmed public meetings for free unedited with comment and distribution open youtube etc if that is what most people responding to a random survey want?

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
15/02/2013 at 10:13

Trick is to put it in green square mode and aim at the person.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
14/02/2013 at 22:48

haha yes - is this a ploy to market your videography services Kaz? ;-)

alex_f, Wokingham
14/02/2013 at 20:18

I'm not accusing them of anything. I could be corrupt. It could be a front to build up a following then abuse it.

So were I a Councillor I would be completely open and back calls for it. I would sign out my ability to ever earn money from people I had negotiated contracts with or the companies they represent. I'm a clever chap I'll earn a living else where. Then you would know I was 'less likely' to be corrupt.

There is a scale and the the more secretive are probed are simply more lekely to be corrupt.

There are definitions of corrupt too. My standard includes MP's running a business that advises on investments and Tax avoidance.

Other people do not see a problem with that.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
14/02/2013 at 20:14

I'm certainly not quite as cynical as you Kaz, but then you have a lot more experience of this than I do, I've only been here for 20 months.

But I think it is a little unfair to accuse Cllr Corrie and Cllr Baker of going that step further to hide corruption, unless there is unquestionable proof. I agree with you on a great deal but our views probably differ most on this. I'm more of the opinion of giving people the benefit of the doubt. I like to think we have a lot of both town and borough councillors who are dedicating their spare time for little to no financial benefit, and those that I have met in person have been very ordinary and caring people, and their portrayal is often unfounded. i can't see any reason to suspect cllr Baker has anything to hide but there is work to do no doubt to ensure a wider audience can still see the presentations whilst alleviating the concerns which have been expressed to him.

alex_f, Wokingham
14/02/2013 at 19:50

Opps. I was going for the feather duster.

In a nutshell. Money is untraceable.

There is about £100k / dwelling that is just planning permission profit.

There are people who are paid just to try encourage the council allow them to keep as much of that £100k as possible and not request it as affordable housing and infrastructure. Did I say that money is untraceable?

So how do we stop corruption? We take the control of publication away from the money or those they might support with campaign leaflets etc.

That means polling cards that go out 'with' candidate info. That means the public seeing the people they voted for in action, that means the costings and the deals being open to independent scrutiny (Independent does not mean someone you select and pay yourself!) better still 'Public'

Anyone who puts their head up and says 'I am against this level of openness accountable' is not fit to govern the world our children are going to inherit.

In my humble opinion.

So. We have Cllr Corrie and Cllr Baker. Anyone else?

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
14/02/2013 at 19:30

Kaz is that a sledgehammer I hear again? ;-)

alex_f, Wokingham
14/02/2013 at 19:00

Anyone know which roads are in Cllr Bakers ward?

Perhaps the small handful of people who are in favor of open accountable democracy will be interested to know who is blocking it. And might question what the real motive is?

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
14/02/2013 at 18:39

Wow that is surprising.

Anyone reading this can ask five regular members of the public people they all agree its the only fair and decent thing to do.

Then Cllr Baker asks the last leavers in a a room full of developers, assistants, plants, councilors,and the remaining perhaps 20% who are real members of the community not looking to retain as much of the £70m planning profit from going back to the community in affordable housing and infrastructure or display the true character their voters don't see on their doorsteps.

I just don't understand. The above is just as representative and came from an unbias source :)

One thing for it. Another trademark Kaz continuous record video so neither of us can be cheating.

If most people say they will be put off by video and not likely to get involved having an open forum for debate with video then I have the strength of character to apologize and let the matter drop.

If the video is in favor Cllr Baker what will you do?

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
14/02/2013 at 18:11

Cllr Baker - understood and thanks for elaborating on some of the reasons (Privacy and uncomfortable to participate is completely understandable - but did someone seriously say human rights?!). We just have to remember though that those who don't attend are not necessarily those who are too lazy to do so or not interested - they can also be those who couldn't possibly go but couldn't due to other unavoidable commitments. They have just as much a 'right' to be informed and updated on the SDLs.

As Kaz mentions, a 6pm meeting massively limits the potential audience. That basically rules out anyone with a young family, anyone not working locally, anyone with irregular working patterns, anyone usually having to work late (as the majority of us have to do these days). This rules out a significant chunk of the demographic, and actually probably those who will most be directly affected or even moving in to these SDLs.

It's an overall question of how to involve as many people as possible. Minuting is done but is very limited - especially if there is a visual aspect. Videoing is probably only one of many other options available. I would suggest web-ex and conference calls as well but that's because I'm a techie :) (and doesn't really solve the issue of alot of people not being able to make it at that time). Even if videoing of these public meetings doesn't happen, hopefully this whole debate will mean we can take a look into how to make these meetings more accessible (in the 'available' sense rather than DDA).

alex_f, Wokingham
14/02/2013 at 17:15

Alex-F I understand where you are coming from but there are issues that would have to be resolved. For example, if we just ask the presenters what a questions and answers, which in many respects is the best part of these forums.

Those that attended and were against it gave reasons such as, I would feel uncomfortable and constrained in participating; against my human rights and others.

If these residents have taken the time to attend I am afraid I will always put there views above those who do not make it.

As I have been said before I perosnally agree with the principle for all the reasons you put forward. But it will take time to sort out to see if all these issues can be resolved.

How would you cope with residents turning up and finding that there will be a video made of the proceedings who then leave? Give them advanced notice could be one way but what about those people who would be put off by such a notice?

Remember, we were willing to start discussions with Kaz on this but he rushed to the press to complain rather than working with us to see if we could find a way forward.

Cllr Keith Baker
14/02/2013 at 16:47

Cllr Baker - the problem with asking that question to those who attended is that of course most would be neutral - what benefit would they see, given they have already attended in person (and likely those more able to do so - e.g. don't work away, don't have small children to pick up from school and feed, etc). Asking the same people time and time again will only re-inforce this skewed view of public opinion.

On the other hand, I'm sure if you asked those on the street who weren't able to attend 'would you like public meetings to be taped so you can watch them when you are unable to make the meeting' you'd get an almost unanimously positive response.

I respect very much that you are considering the residents and ensuring they are comfortable with it. I personally think this should be done but agree with you that some relevant safeguards could be in place. Perhaps you could take a proactive approach in asking residents why they are against it. Then Kaz and yourself could agree a proposal (nothing too formal!) for how to best meet the needs of residents who cannot attend and also how to best re-assure those who attend. This might involve say outlining that only presenters / the panel will be viewable (as it happens almost everywhere else in a conference / forum type setting, bar Question Time), questions can be written down and passed to the front or asked by a representative on behalf. So people don't have to be seen or even heard if they don't want to be.

This could then be proposed to those who attend. Neutral responses are good in this case, given the scope of the question is 'do you mind?'. Then someone can weigh up the number against with the possible benefits seen by the rest of the population.

Kaz could even ask the question. Maybe he and I are wrong and there are really good and compelling reasons why it shouldn't be done, and we're unknowingly in the minority.

alex_f, Wokingham
14/02/2013 at 15:55

Just to put a bit of reality to this conversation I was at the South of the M4 SDL Forum last night. After the meeting was finished I asked a simple question which was "would you be okay for the whole of these procedings to be videod and put unedited onto the internet". Not a single person was in support of this. At best they were neutral but had a large number of residents against it.

I will contune to ask residents who turn up at other meetings the same question.

Unlike a large number of you who simply want to ride roughshod over the will of the residents who attend these meetings I will abide by their decision.

Cllr Keith Baker
14/02/2013 at 14:03

I've been to plenty of meetings where the broadcast media have been present and wasn't issued with a health warning saying I could object.

You're in a public forum. in the case of meetings held indoors, if permission has been given by the owner of the property to allow filming then your only option is to unattend. I can't see the difference between being seen in the meeting and having that fact recorded on video.

I'd like to see a clear policy on video in full council meetings as well as the SDL forums the original issue was raised over.

A tiny percentage of the electorate attend council meetings and they are only cursorily reported in the media. If local people saw for themselves the sort of people that are representing them and how they arrive at decisions that affect their lives they might take more of an interest. Or is that what the council is afraid of?

Charles Foster Kane
13/02/2013 at 22:33

I would be all in favour of having these meetings videoed, I think the quality issue is secondary, I think if we could organise an independent group of people willing to do it for free, saving the council money, even if it's not great quality who cares ? And all this nonsense about people being put off by the cameras, could we not just say, if you want to ask a question off camera, we'll stop videoing while you ask the question. People cannot always make the meetings. I recall about a year ago going to a meeting advertised as being about the town center plans in the wokingham times and spending 2 hours listening to a nice lady from holland who knew nothing of the town having arrived the same day, and telling us about how they made changes in new york. A complete waste of my time frankly. I say let the light in, as our prime minister said, it's the most powerful disinfectent in the world. What feeble excuses, lets see what they say on the record, that we can refer to easily and quickly, I think these "problems" seem a little fabricated.

wokingham gez
13/02/2013 at 21:36

I can't honestly see the downside, if someone doesn't want to be videoed, they can ask to ask a question off the video, and that question and response can not be videoed or someone else could ask it for them so it can be videoed. I'm fed up with going to meetings, and hearing one thing, only to find that the council carries on as if no one has said anything. At least if it was recorded there would be an independent record of what was said.

Like many things in life, it depends on your view point. Interesting that if you oppose the building of 1000's of houses in an overcrowded area you are a nimby or ludite, if you oppose filming public meetings you are .... a wbc councillor (with apologies in advance to those who have spoken in favour of it ),

Gerald de la Pascua
13/02/2013 at 20:59

I agree with alex_f. Cllr Baker still doesn't seem to be getting it. There needs to be a clear policy on what happens if someone gets their iPhone (for example) out and starts recording the meeting it then blogs it.

Charles Foster Kane
13/02/2013 at 17:49

Cllr Baker. Beforw telling porkies with an air of authority best to make sure the evidence is not one click away. www.youtube.com/wokinghamBC

Pro video and plenty ambient public faces.

Interesting point in Wokingham Gossip Guys from chap who was there when a council representative said that they would not be developing on any of Elms field. Imagine if we had that on video now.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
13/02/2013 at 16:21

Cllr Baker - as mentioned before I completely understand about making sure the attendees are aware and comfortable with filming.

However, it seems to be going down far too formal a route than is needed. Why do you need someone on the books? (Assuming a consentual audience) whether it is in 480p or 1080p, with a professional camera or an iphone - surely noone really cares, as long as the message is clear. It doesn't have to be an official WBC affair does it? Just a member of the public wanting to share a public meeting via their own youtube page.

alex_f, Wokingham
13/02/2013 at 13:34

The reason why I mentioned "pitched" for the business is that we do not have someone "on the books" to do this and we will have to pay someone to do this.

I note that Kaz has said he will do it for free and turn over the video to us to put it unedited onto the wokingham youtube page. I welcome this approach but would have to be convinced of the quality of his work.

Unfortunately for all those of you who simply say film regardless of peoples acceptance shows a total lack of respect to those individuals.

Cllr Keith Baker
13/02/2013 at 12:39

According to pdf at the bottom of

http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/communities/communityforums/

There is a meeting about the Southern M4 SDL tonight. Not a lot of publication on this. Not even the location has been made public?

"Have your say"

I am unable to attend but if someone could please pop a handy cam near the front and hit record at the beginning that would be great. I'm happy to capture the footage and upload it to somewhere where we can all watch it for free and comment on it openly if you don't know how.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
13/02/2013 at 10:55

'suggested he could "pitch" for the business'

Has it been suggested that a charge be levied in order for a public meeting to be filmed? If so, then I would be appalled. If WBC can freely use video footage to inform the local electorate on how their money is spent, why can't a member of the public do the same?

Was written permission granted and a fee obtained to record this gem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drqrrIdL2T0

Beef Cake Argh!
13/02/2013 at 08:56

Cllr Baker and other Cllrs - pray tell what are you afraid of?

let the man film, it is after all a PUBLIC meeting nothing to hide here!

Stop hiding behind excuses, be more transparent and start listening to the public opinion for a change.

Local Woky, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 21:52

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.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 11:27

Why can't Wokingham Borough Council just let people film these public forums.

After all, it's not like they've got anything to hide???

wokinghamworker, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 11:11

Why can't W

wokinghamworker, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 11:09

Fed up - our national politicians tell us things on national TV and in national newspapers every week that turn out to be lies, damn lies and statistics; sadly they still don't get held to account! Apparently the 'squirm' training they go through is very thorough.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 10:36

I think you're right, IP. A lot of people who go to these meetings are not the media trained, nonsense-spouting executives and politicians but everyday members of staff that drove them there, made their cup of tea and are taking notes. If you're going to have a young lady from the office on 16k/year in a public forum meeting and then film it, it's only fair to ask her (and everyone else, of course) if they consent.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
12/02/2013 at 10:33

I think it is a case of councillors are worried about being held to account if the proceedings are filmed. If there is no recording of what is *actually* said then they can squirm their way out of it. Lot more difficult when it is recorded on film.

Fed up, Lower Earley
12/02/2013 at 10:29

“He who controls the media controls the minds of the public” –Noam Chomsky

Beef Cake Argh!
12/02/2013 at 10:25

I suspect it's more about getting permission or agreeing that everyone attending the meeting including us the general public are happy about being filmed.