Manipulated and incomplete results of Leisure Centre redevelopment vote

It aged like old milk: STC ballot paper in a questionnaire about the proposed development of one STC building (Leisure Centre). I call it a “referendum on debt”, but it’s not the right term. What was not right is also that questions were proposed and voted without member of the opposition present at the meeting. He(me) was not invited by civil “servants”. Not Town Clerk, nor her brother bothered to send an email to the councillor about the questionnaire meeting to take the BIGGEST DEBT in the history of the town.

“REFERENDUM” WAS A JOKE
That’s why the “referendum” that Labour devised, debated and voted on in secret from the opposition aged like milk: there was no one to ask real questions. Today I confirm- “referendum” results stink to high heaven! STC manipulated the results, AND in addition, they made errors in the results form sent in response to the FOI Act request (or they edited out info on purpose). A double whammy of incompetence. Riddle me that:

MATHS AND FIGURES- STC NEMESIS
So let’s start by looking at what a clean ballot paper looked like, and only then will I show readers the “results”. A clean ballot to start with:

It doesn’t take a genius to guess why the Labour Party didn’t invite me to a meeting on the publication of the referendum questions. I would have insisted on adding the FOUR option: “No debt”. If there had been such an option- I would have heavily advertised this referendum and taken part myself.

FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOM OF INFORMATION
I got… more than I thought I would get. This FOI will give me something to write about for the next few weeks. Labour has made poo-poo again and it stinks!

So, results! Just look at it! On the ballot paper you have THREE options, but in the results there are…. FOUR answers.

Where did STC get the votes in option four from? From the ceiling. Why? To confirm that residents “want” to take on a multi-million-pound debt that will increase their taxes by 100% for 20-30 years. In living cost crisis times, residents want to DOUBLE the tax! Damn! You are wealthy people…

Returning to the above picture for a moment: “errors in important documents” are Jennifer Jeffries’ speciality, but this time, I must also mention the “new” head of the Leisure Committee. His name also appears at the bottom of the document. First, he lied to me that he would send me the information, and when I finally forced the information through an FOI, the document signed with his name ended up with an ERROR on my desk. Are we following in the tradition of the previous head of the Leisure Committee? She did not check the documents either. That’s where the pellets scandal came from.

Thus: allegedly, probably, likely, the Town Clerk made that new “mistake” because:

a/The Town Clerk is incompetent and has again unknowingly made an error in the documents due to lack of ‘attention to details’ (just as she ‘unknowingly made errors in the first report on the LC pellets scandal, in the second report on the LC scandal and in the last financial report. Damn- kinda lot of “mistakes”, don’t you think?)

b/The Town Clerk did this ‘editing’ of the data of her own free will and deliberately to hide the data that only a handful of people working at LC, their families and people currently using LC want it expanded. Out of almost 7,000 people eligible to vote, 300 people will decide on a debt of 12,000,000. Yeah- democracy!

c/The Town Clerk made this mistake because she was coerced by someone who is aggressive, violent and out of fear for her own safety, she edited out the data. Obviously, no one with aggressive tendencies at Town Hall is looking over her shoulder. She certainly has nothing to fear- family surrounds her. Literally.

But let me put it this way: this is not the first time that the Town Clerk has altered or concealed a document that has subsequently appeared in the public domain. Presumably Cllr Paul Herefor is sitting back satisfied that they have answered all the questions when in fact his name appears in the FOI reply document with a glaring error and missing details.

DO WE NEED A SUPER ENERGY-INTENSIVE SWIMMING POOL? CAN WE REALLY AFFORD IT?
No. We don’t need it, and more important- we CAN’T afford it. Bigger and wealthier councils closed multiple swimming pools just for one reason- costs. Don’t believe me? Check the internet by typing into a search engine the phrase: “how many swimming pools have closed in the UK since the beginning of 2021”. You will be shocked!

One more thing– when STC prepared this “referendum”, interest rates were at 2%. Now they are at 5%. Data in their “calculations” is already outdated and false. 12 mil at 5%. Great deal for residents!

So why is Labour putting so much pressure to build something that is falling down around us left and right? My view is that this project is big money and has the potential to ‘create’ new jobs for ‘Labour family, STC inner circle and associates’.

FOI DETAILS
You can read the exact wording of my query and Town Clerk’s response below.

At that meeting, I was assured by Councillor Hereford that he would send me information on the
outcome and cost of the ‘referendum’ on taking on debt to build the new Leisure Centre. To date, I
have not received this response. I have therefore requesting that the following information be
made available to me: how many votes were cast in the referendum by option, how many votes
were declared invalid, and what was the total cost of holding the referendum, including the cost of
advertising, printing ballot papers, counting the votes and all additional costs.

The answer of Town Clerk:

To clarify it was a consultation for a potential leisure development not a referendum ‘on taking on debt’.

Consultation results attached.

We have no record of any invalid votes.

Unfortunately, we did not keep a record of how many sheets were printed, however I can confirm that 300 sheets would cost £11.88 to print.

Advertising was done via free mediums, so no cost.

We have not to date received any charges from Bolsover DC for providing the

counting service.

ANALYZE THIS
I am not going to analyse further the dribble that STC and Labour call the results of the “consultation”. Here is my view: the results have been manipulated. The whole process of preparing the ballot was a scandal. The ballot collection and counting were also shrouded in the fumes of scandal and so much so that even some Labour members were unhappy about it. And now the results-as if spitting in the face of the residents. There were three options to vote for, but somehow there are four in the results. Scandal, scandal, scandal, aaaaaand one more scandal.

Cllr Chris Kane? Still under investigation… Oh! Ah! Our glorious leader of STC! What is going on in this investigation that it takes soooooo much time to conclude? And what with the new “asbestos buried in cemetery” scandal? What with the pellet scandal? What with the solar panels scandal? What with a scandal that I can’t write about at the moment, but STC already made the decision to hire lawyers?

Cllr Chris Kane? Are you there? No? Well, I’m not surprised. First to fight, last to answer real questions…

Sylwester Zwierzynski info@shirebrook247.com