Keeping Costs Down doesnt Count

Merrick Cockell has often bemoaned the cost of supplying residents with information: after all does he not cynically proclaim 'Council business belongs out in the open, where residents can keep a close eye'.

In reality he prefers to give away as little info as possible to the lumpen proletariat of the Borough

Taking him at his word, and to save the costs Sir Cockle complains about, Justin Downes, local activist, wrote asking if the Leader would answer his very simple information request, Here it is below. No big deal you would think; after all we know that last year he took from taxpayers over £100k so are we not entitled to know what else is tucked away?

Mr Downes says if the Leader refuses his request he will be forced to put in an Freedom of Information. 

Dear Sir Merrick

We both recognise the cost to residents of servicing Freedom of Information requests: you yourself, have made this an issue in the past.

I have recently requested information pertaining to the Fellowship of the British American Project of yourself, Cllr Moylan and Cllr Lightfoot. This is information that could quite easily be supplied without recourse to an FOI- and ensuing cost of servicing. Why is it necessary to go through this rigmarole to
obtain what, on the face of it, is innocuous information?

I am also interested to know what other taxpayer funded posts you hold. Would you be good enough to supply this information without my needing to invoke further expense by making a request under the Freedom of Information Act?  I very much look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Justin Downes

Mr Downes has asked Hornet to "please state that he is not the Hornet". The Dame knows that very well so is happy to reproduce his eloquent request.

Now you know.