Tax rise 2026 – part 2
Today’s article presents the most interesting information about the town’s finances discussed at the last precept meeting of STC. I really tried to shorten the text, but this meeting lasted two hours, so even a text containing only the most interesting statements is… 9(!) pages long.
Yeah. Even my AI was angry about it. He wrote: “the article is extremely long for a blog post—9 pages will lose most readers. The repetitive ‘long silence’ observations, while making a valid point about the Town Clerk’s evasiveness, become tedious.”
TEDIOUS? MORE LIKE… DETAILED!
Sometimes I have to ignore my (usually very helpful) AI. I need readers to understand the tactics the Town Clerk uses to avoid scrutiny and responsibility. I know—the text is long and not for everyone, but this is the thing: I write for those who are invested, interested, and want to know more. So, apart from the dry Q and A, I added my own commentary to explain the context or background of lesser-known issues.
On a few occasions, I didn’t note who said a particular line- sorry, I don’t have time to go back to the audio recording to extrapolate that info. Once again, this list describes only the most important questions asked and does not reflect the full scope of events. The chart below reflects that sentiment: which councillors cut through and left the biggest mark in my notes:
I’m also trying to compile a short video (if my laptop can handle it) showing how the Town Clerk sabotages proceedings by refusing to sit with Councillors in the Chamber and conducting her duties via TEXT messages sent over the internet. And that’s where we start.
IN THE BEGINNING…
The first thing I noticed was the fact that, for the first time, someone other than me gave a clear signal that they were not happy with the Town Clerk’s absence from the Chamber. According to the strange law of this country, councillors cannot criticize Civil or Public Servants even when they see something obviously wrong (even a crime- how weird is that?). This doesn’t change the fact that the Town Clerk hasn’t appeared at meetings for months—at least since the infamous meeting in Tangent. This makes everyone’s work more difficult, increases costs, and creates greater time requirements. And finally, someone showed some balls to underline that.
Nevertheless, Labour Party councillors seemed to accept this extraordinary situation. What’s more, it seems to me that it suited them, which is why the Labour Party never officially took any steps to change this deeply disturbing practice. After all, you can’t spill the beans when you’re not in the room, right? Even when your face flashes red after you’re caught in lies, no one will see it when you’re miles away at home and communicating BY TEXT. Right?
That’s why I think the Town Clerk and Labour Party agreed on keeping the Town Clerk as far away from the Chamber as possible. They’re doing it on purpose to refuse new councillors the opportunity to learn her tricks.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
At this meeting, however, Andrew Stevens emphasised that he wanted the minutes to reflect that the Town Clerk was not in the Chamber. It wasn’t criticism- just stating the fact (and that is still allowed by law. For now.). The proposal was met with an objection from the Assistant to the Town Clerk, who suggested that the Town Clerk was electronically connected, but ultimately the Assistant agreed to include an appropriate entry in the minutes. Will she?
This doesn’t change the fact that Andrew Stevens’ actions underscore that some councillors’ frustration is growing due to the low quality of the Town Clerk’s work and her disregard for her duties. Will Andrew Stevens’ request and the note about the absent Town Clerk appear in that form in the minutes? Or perhaps, knowing the Town Clerk, she’ll omit it or change it to sound like something along the lines of: “Town Clerk was present virtually.” We’ll see.
Andrew Stevens showed leadership qualities here. He is Vice Chair, and as such, he is responsible for creating an environment in which “his troops” will have all the tools to draw correct conclusions about the matters discussed. The lack of the MAIN town official in the room impedes and denies that opportunity to new councillors. I think that all minutes since the Tangent meeting should reflect that the Town Clerk decided to abandon the duties, or at least include a note in the minutes on who agreed to that solution. Moving on.
RAPID FIRE
From now on I will try to just show questions, answers to them, and sometimes bit of my commentary. Brace for impact because there is a lot to consume. I will start each new entry with the word NEXT so you can see when one issue ended and a new one started.
NEXT: Michael Yates asked about ownership of the town hall; Town Clerk replied: 40% utilities charged to BDC, but building is owned by STC; building is owned outright by STC (my note: so what about this rumour that BDC leased half of the ground floor for 100 years—is it true or not? I have no idea and the Town Clerk didn’t mention it at all.)
NEXT: This is a big one. Oliver Kershaw-Dickson asked about discrepancies in the sums shown on documents two weeks ago and on documents shown at this meeting. The Town Clerk sank into a long silence. A very long silence. If you read this article to the end, you’ll see that this “waiting” element became a regular feature at this meeting. After a long wait, the Town Clerk replied that the previous document didn’t include forecasts for the last quarter of the financial year.
Oliver Kershaw-Dickson tried to investigate how two weeks could lead to such large discrepancies in spending forecasts, but here the Town Clerk again employed the “slow response” tactic. Before she sent the response, which the Assistant then read aloud after a moment, few councillors were ready to ask further questions.
When Twon Clerk finally answered—her response raised more questions than it explained and the whole procedure started over again. Question-waiting-response-question-waiting-response, round and round. I’ll say this: from the tone of voice and body language, I could tell that both Oliver Kershaw-Dickson and several other councillors were not satisfied with the answers. The Town Clerk has done this in the past—I caught her falsifying numbers —and the most glaring example of this type of behaviour was the scandal over the Finance Report 22/23. Labour Party? It’s like it never existed—not a mention in minutes, no explanation, nothing. Who cares about financial discrepancies when you can raise taxes and cover it up by not talking about it ever again, right?
NEXT: (someone—I didn’t note who) asked about bank charges. And here, for the first time this evening, the Town Clerk clearly manipulated the facts. She said that the difference in bank charges resulted from the fact that many of the councillors authorised to sign checks resigned, and because of this (as a result of the crazy increase in payroll expenses) STC repeatedly exceeded the transfer limit, and Coop Bank imposed penalties on STC. Each time this happened, money that wasn’t anticipated was spent, driving bank charges many times higher than planned.
Except the Town Clerk missed the truth. Here’s the proof:
The truth is—for many months STC had approved councillors with permission to sign checks and change transfer amounts. This happened long after 27% pay rise to STC officials. The Town Clerk simply failed to fulfil her duty, for which we, the taxpayers, paid huge penalties. For me, it’s just another straw on the camel’s back. For Labour, this was business as usual.
The above document was dug up by Tina Price after the meeting, once again proving what a good councillor she would be. Being at the meeting, this caught my attention too, because, of course, I remembered that for a long time, STC had the required number of bank signatories. If I had been sitting as a councillor at that meeting, I certainly would have asked about it, but since I was there more as a minute taker for my blog, I ignored this fact.
THIS IS SERIOUS – TOWN CLERK LIED
Only after the meeting, Tina Price made me realise how serious this matter is. The Town Clerk misled the councillors by failing to fulfil her duties and by trying to hide it rather than admitting it outright. The lie is obvious. The Town Clerk literally blamed the Labour Party councillors who resigned.
Will the Labour Party do anything about this? No. In the past, the Town Clerk falsified Finance Reports, hid the fact that she was signing documents on behalf of STC without informing councillors, concealed facts about correspondence with the MP’s office, and Labour always ignored it. I’m certain they’ll ignore this too this time. Socialists not only like to lie- they also like to be lied to.
NEXT: Andrew Stevens mentioned that new councillors have problems understanding STC’s spending structure, which initiated a plan to change the budget review system. My comment: finally! Wait, let me capitalise this: FINALLY! Why? Because Labour’s style was: raise taxes, Town Clerk will run things with the “leader,” and if we run out of money, we’ll raise taxes again. New councillors under Andrew Stevens’ leadership clearly reject that policy. It will take them time to introduce new controls over spending, but the procedure has already started. Big win.
NEXT: Michael Yates asked why maintenance planned for recreation areas increased from a precept of 2,000 to 13,000. Allegedly, this was caused by anti-social behaviour. I’ll say this: damage worth 13,000 would have to be serious. Unfortunately, since I’m not on STC, I don’t have direct access to this type of data flow.
Personally, I haven’t noticed any posts on Facebook about any damage to the town’s infrastructure, so I don’t know if this is true and I just missed it, or if it’s another way to extract taxpayer money. What’s more, Michael Yates emphasised that only a 5K was planned for this purpose this year. My response: without knowledge of spending on this purpose in previous years, it’s impossible to determine the trend. This is a shot in the dark, although I agree with the councillor that this sum seems strangely small.
NEXT: Someone asked about the fishing pod. Answer: work was planned but didn’t come to fruition due to the breakup of the Labour Party and lack of decisions. Another piece of evidence that Labour Party at the moment is harming our town (and country) more than helping.
NEXT: Shelley Arapi asked about the operation cost of one of the buildings (I didn’t hear which one). She was answered by a long silence. The silence was so long that BMC decided to break it and asked another question. Of course, this is typical old-Labour behaviour.
I know this from experience. When there’s something to hide, Labour and Town Clerk first play for time, then divert attention, and when that doesn’t work, they play the victim. This is what happened with the “friends and family” scandal, except in that case, Chris Kane went a step further and introduced violence into the Chamber to divert attention from the problem. All so that no one would look at the matter more closely. How did that work out, Councillor Kane? Oh, right. He resigned in infamy…
My comment: this avalanche-like increase in spending on “maintenance and repairs” coincides with a decrease in demand for pellets (from 40k to 16k). As if someone discovered a new way to commission repair work to “relatives and friends.” Oh, wait, what’s that? You want examples? In the past, the most obvious example of this was buying plants from Glapwell instead of our local nursery, just because the Glapwell nursery is owned by… you know, friends and family of the Labour Party.
But there’s also a more recent example. Just recently, Labour-led STC awarded a contract to a firm where the director is the son of the previous Leader of STC, Mr Harford:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11495412/officers?fbclid=IwY2xjawP0CiNleHRuA2FlbQIxMABzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEempBJkERjw_pgv4GfYmnqrYydJU5cgP9BMgqmOv6ADmNzycXL5yuDDr4SYFo_aem_RW-h3LrNBQK94cKJ5uc1gw
I posted a short text about it on Facebook, but I think I’ll make an extended version of it for S247 in the coming weeks. Why? Because after I posted it, I received a wave of very aggressive messages. Here is one of the less aggressive, but more ambiguous ones.
For me, that’s the best evidence that there’s more to dig up. Those who have something to hide usually try to scare off the light shed on them. Crime flourishes in darkness. So, let me… sniff around a little bit more and shed more light on it, and on all the other allegedly perfectly fine deals done under the previous Labour leadership.
But for now, let’s go back to Shelley Arapi’s question. This strangely long silence was ultimately interrupted by old-Labour’s Brian Murray-Carr. He asked about something completely different, and I don’t know if he did this because he was bored with waiting or because he was “playing defence.” Fun fact: in my notes, I didn’t find an answer to Shelley Arapi’s question, only her next question.
NEXT: This time, Shelley Arapi asked about the projection for the utilities cost on the new building on Market Square. Yet another example of forward thinking that Labour councillors lack. Those costs were ignored when Albour dumped that grey block on Market Square. Among those uncosted payments is NNDR – something like council tax for businesses and offices. It’s an extremely costly element of any operation. For example, NNDR on the Leisure Centre is:
Answer: Until STC takes over the building, we won’t know how much the NNDR is. Or any other utility cost.
NEXT: Shelley Arapi asked about stock purchases in the Leisure Centre. Town Clerk’s answer: “I have to come back on that, I don’t have that information.”
My comment: New councillors still don’t know this, but when I was a councillor, the LC Supervisor never reported costs. Only income. Not profit— only income. And every time I looked at those figures, they didn’t add up with expenses. But, back then, I was alone, so I had to choose my fights carefully, and I never found time to scrutinise the LC Supervisor’s numbers correctly—it was enough to focus on pellet delivery discrepancies to know that something was royally wrong in LC.
NEXT: Michael Yates asked about market operation costs and suggested that we can’t really predict income from the market in the next tax year. Discussion started, and the basic feeling is that Michael Yates was right—we can’t predict how traders and buyers will behave after the launch of the new Town Square. I think it will be extremely difficult to attract both traders and clients. You just can’t ignore the fact that society is not what it used to be. Modern-day Britons have much less disposable income, even when they work longer hours than their fathers and grandfathers. Not to mention the convenience of the internet.
NEXT: Someone said that STC will need a tractor. It was spoken as a passing comment, but tractors are incredibly expensive machines, so I assume it won’t happen in the near future.
NEXT: Shelley Arapi asked about salaries. The difference between the planned and spent budget was substantial. Again, a loooong silence. Town Clerk’s answer: we had an employee on long-term sick leave (Tree Felling scandal, I assume), and we had to have money for when he returns. I didn’t understand this. To this moment, I don’t understand this statement. What’s more, I have more questions than answers—how did this matter end? Did the insurer, the town, or the company pay for the damage? Why did STC have to spend more money on an employee returning from sick leave?
Labour swept that scandal under the carpet masterfully. Ask Brian Murray-Carr- he knows best. He was there when it happened…
NEXT: Andrew Stevens—question about village hall salary. Cost? 25,000, even though the building is practically unused. Answer: it’s the wage of the caretaker plus salaries for casual workers when there is a booking. I’m not satisfied with it. It’s basically a full-time worker working all week, yet the building is closed 90% of the time. What are they cleaning there? Money?
NEXT: Michael Yates asked if we have any loans. Answer: we don’t have any. STC is debt-free at the moment, and I hope Dale Smith’s idea fails so we never get that 12,000,000 loan for his vanity project.
NEXT: Andrew Stevens—Leisure Centre staff cost has a difference of 44k between planned and executed. Town Clerk’s explanation: the last report was a draft; this report has full numbers. So what? The fourth quarter of wages in LC is 44k? In November alone, it was above 30k. I don’t understand—and without access to the documents the councillors were looking at—I won’t speculate. I only emphasise that it seems strange to me that the Town Clerk presented completely different numbers two weeks ago than at this meeting.
NEXT: Shelley Arapi asked about election costs. In the expenses appeared the cost of the by-election we had some time ago. These expenses always appear with a significant delay because all elections are organised by BDC, which issues the invoice to be paid by STC. STC has no influence or choice in this matter.
It’s a shame I didn’t write down how much this payment for the by-election was, but ALMOST everyone in the room agreed that we avoided huge expenses by not triggering a by-election. Allegedly we all won… oh, wait. There was one guy who lost, thanks to Labour. Me!
Was it revenge for what I did in exposing their corruption and nepotism? I like to think yes. I will wear it as a badge of honour to the end of my life. I was punished for exposing corruption and nepotism, yet I’m still fighting. If that doesn’t show character, I don’t know what does.
NEXT: Andrew Stevens asked for a breakdown of staff numbers for each department. Town Clerk’s answer—because she works from home, she couldn’t answer.
Generally, such a breakdown of numbers supposedly exists in the documentation at the end of the year. From this, we know that three people working full-time in the Town Hall cost us 151,000: for the Town Clerk, her brother and the Assistant. 50 000 on average per employee. Nice, right?
All other departments are mixed and mingled into a few separate tables. No one but the Town Clerk knows the real numbers and… since she worked from home—she didn’t answer.
NEXT: Shelley Arapi asked about expenses on professional services. Answer: it was solicitors’ fees. It came way over budget. In total, 6k down the drain. The question is what did we need these solicitors for? You won’t guess—the Town Clerk again replied that she doesn’t have these documents with her. Councillors talked about it for a moment.
What I inferred is that they spent a mountain of money on this Village Hall lease and then some on an issue with the Crematorium(?). Nothing on the Tree Felling scandal? It’s so weird, because… eh, nevermind, right? Who cares about a few k here or there. Not Labour—that’s for sure.
NEXT: Shelley Arapi asked about VAT and once again showed that her expertise far outreaches my (and other councillors’) level of knowledge in business matters. I never dealt with VAT and even when I did—I hired professionals to sort it out. All I know about VAT is that I hate it. Anyway, Shelley Arapi asked a series of business questions, including about the frequency of paying VAT. Here we met our new friend—a loooong silence. After some time, the answer came: “We don’t pay VAT, we claim it, usually quarterly.” I’ll be honest—it flew under my radar when I was a councillor. I never noticed any VAT (re)claims. But to be fair, I was more focused on weird expenses.
NEXT: Shaun Cheeseman asked about the capital program fund. Long silence again, and ultimately an answer I didn’t understand. “It was a lever that was put in place some time ago in case the council wanted to engage in a capital project.” I don’t know what this means. If I were a councillor, I would ask for clarification and wait a long time for an answer. But… you know—Labour was too scared to co-opt me in, and since there were no follow-up questions, we’re all lost on it.
NEXT: Andrew Stevens—question about payments from Langwith Parish Council and whether we expect more payments this year. Do we still have anything to do with LPC? Answer: no. This strange relationship with LPC has been terminated.
NEXT: Someone asked about grass-cutting—and I have nothing in my notes about the answer. That is odd because I sniffed around this issue, and there is some very suspicious activity connected to it. Some payments going from hand to hand, someone doing a job, and no VAT is on the books, someone… eh. Nevermind, right? Who cares if friends and families of Labour councillors benefited from STC contracts, right? It’s not like STC owns a grass-cutter. Oh, wait. They do own one, and yet Labour hired some company to do it anyway? Well, well, well. I have so many questions…
Chris Kane! You there?
NEXT: Michael Yates—question about subscriptions. I noted it because it is a question on my personal agenda. Each year, in January, I review all my subscriptions and decide whether I really need them. This year I cut over 30 quid per month. It’s weird how they sneak up on you… Nothing to do with STC—just a personal thing, and Michael Yates reminded me about it.
NEXT: Shelley Arapi—question about the cemetery. A delicate issue, and it was discussed with… well, there is no other way: no one in the room felt good about talking about it. There is something that makes this subject… icky. Not in a corrupt way—in a life way. Anyway, it was a smart question, indicating again that Shelley Arapi thinks ahead and wants to know as much as possible about town operations. This will pay back in the near future.
There was also a question on how many free spaces we have at the moment, whether we have sufficient reserves for the future, who determines the prices, and a whole range of other questions. Basically, in these few minutes, I heard more about the cemetery than I ever wished. The Town Clerk answered the questions. There was nothing controversial among them. Generally, STC at the moment has no problem, although councillors agreed that the situation needs to be monitored continuously, especially if the plan to expand the new housing estate comes into effect, and we suddenly gain 4,000 residents. Overall, it was an interesting discussion on a very uninteresting topic.
NEXT: Andrew Stevens asked something about one of the STC buildings. I didn’t know which building. I noted a long silence again and found that in the audio recording. I lost focus, and when the Assistant started reading the answer from the Town Clerk, I didn’t hear which building the question concerned. If I were a councillor, I would ask follow-up questions to provide voters with the full picture. I should go back to my audio, but I spent so much time on this text that I refuse to do it. I have other things to write – sorry, readers. I’m a volunteer, don’t expect me to work overtime.
As an observer I have no right to speak on meetings, so—I don’t know what the councillor asked. I did note the last part of the Town Clerk’s answer: there is no money for maintenance of this building.
NEXT: Andrew Stevens asked about the anticipated maintenance costs of the pavilion on the market square. The Town Clerk replied that if STC doesn’t sign the documents, it won’t take over the building. The Town Clerk also had no information from BDC about the potential amount of NNDR. Andrew Stevens confirmed that he was in contact with BDC to organize a meeting on this matter (it took place on the 4th of February—unfortunately it was at 6PM, not the usual 7PM and I couldn’t make it—hence no report). The Town Clerk confirmed that the planned handover date was set for the end of February, but at the moment, STC still has no plan for this building.
What’s more, at the moment (of writing this text), it seems to me that councillors don’t really know what to do with this building. The previous administration put a block on the Market Square, took away the toys, overturned the table, and walked off into the darkness, leaving new councillors with the problem.
NEXT: Andrew Stevens asked about the crematorium. He asked when we expect some income from the operation of this building. Long silence. When the Town Clerk gave an answer, Andrew Stevens asked the question again because he didn’t understand the answer. Neither did I. The only thing I wrote in my original notes was “WHAT?” The next answer explained that the STC Leader is part of some body which at some point in time will have an answer to this question (?) I can guess that Dale Smith took one of the positions on the Crematorium board. No concerns there (wrote the author, simultaneously smiling sarcastically).
NEXT: Shaun Cheeseman asked a question I completely missed. The Assistant didn’t heard it either, so asked for it to be repeated. Finally, the answer came: “Figures are all in the booklet.” No idea what it was all about, but the answer was kinda passive-aggressive.
NEXT: Michael Yates questioned the planned increase in LC income. Mainly because of the decline in the quality of the surface of the 5-a-side pitch, which is one of the important income sources of LC (if it’s so good, why not extend it, build additional fields, it’s a basic rule of business: satisfy demand).
NEXT: Shaun Cheeseman mentioned s106 (money from the developer for Shirebrook’s development; held by BDC). The Councillor informed that he’s trying to redirect unused funding. Here I must mention that Old Bolsover Town Council just lost 2,000,000 of S106 funding—thanks to Labour. Yup. Two million pounds back to the developer’s pocket! I bet the developer loves Labour now.
I’ll be honest—I think we will lose some of it too. It was designed to improve (among other targets) transportation. Stinting Lane would be perfect for that money. Yet—I have no idea what STC and BDC’s plan is for the rest of that 500,000 pounds.
NEXT: Shaun Cheeseman noted that at the moment, the Leisure Centre and Village Hall require significant maintenance expenditures. Oliver Kershaw-Dickson also spoke on this issue. Generally, both buildings require an investment of around 65k for repairs. While the planned funds are calculated at around 30k. The Town Clerk replied that councillors can increase the budget in this area, but the money has to come from somewhere.
A long discussion took place on this topic. My comment: for me, it looks like the previous old-Labour administration allowed both buildings to fall into ruin, while at the same time bending over backwards to ensure net-zero contracts delivered massive profits for private companies. Now, we will pay the consequences, and Labour will blame anyone but themselves. As usual with communists and socialists.
NEXT: Michael Yates said: “Income line 9, 6,000.” Again, I had no idea what they were talking about. But this time, I didn’t lose focus and listened carefully. Right after that, Michael Yates proposed to, and I quote: “sell that property for 129,000.” Yes, ladies and gentlemen—that’s how Labour is trying to bury yet another “friends and family” scandal.
I won’t dive into the details of it. Why? I know about it from trusted sources, but for me it’s not enough. I always take tips with a pinch of salt, and then I check them again, my way. This scandal? I didn’t even have time to touch it. I know who did what and why, I know STC lost a lot more than they gained… That property is the last remnant of that scandal. I think old-Labour decided to liquidate it before new councillors start to ask questions: ‘How come STC became a landlord?’ Where is this house, who maintains it, does STC pay taxes on property income, are we prepared for changes in property law introduced recently by commies from Labour?’
Anyway, it looks like new councillors didn’t focus on how and why. 129,000 extra in the budget sounds like a nice life preserver for the sinking ship HMS STC.
NEXT: Oliver Kershaw-Dickson said that if the sale of this property comes to fruition, part of these funds should be redirected to LC, particularly for maintenance. As far as I smell a rat with this sale, the councillor is right. If this administration neglects maintenance as the previous one did, costs will only rise in the future. It’s better to fix a small problem now than a huge one later. Ask a socialist. Oh, wait…
NEXT: At the end, Shelley Arapi spoke, emphasising that the previous Labour administration left the town with a deficit, unrepaired buildings, and no plan for the Town Square pavilion. She proposed more frequent budget execution reviews, which aligns with one of the points of my Shirebrook 2030 agenda and Andrew Stevens’ declaration from the first part of the meeting. I support it.
TIP OF THE ICEBERG
There was so much more said at that meeting, but I had to focus on the most interesting bits. It was the most informative and detailed Precept meeting in my memory. As I said before, under old-Labour, it was way more superficial. Just read the document, check nothing, and raise taxes at the end.
Yes, we got another tax rise, and I hate that. But at least someone is starting to ask the right questions, point out problems, and propose solutions. So you need to forgive me when I’m slowly starting to warm up to those few new councillors who clearly ask the right questions and do the work before they come to the Chamber. These few months before the 2027 election are a time to fix the town enough so that the new team won’t have to extinguish fires but can start building new things.
MVC – MOST VALUABLE COUNCILLORS
First, I have to single out Shelley Arapi. She was absolutely surgically precise. She cut deep and where it was needed. Same as Andrew Stevens, who maybe talked less but when he talked—it was pure substance, no fluff. Another on the list of MVC is Oliver Kershaw-Dickson, not because of the number of questions, but the weight of them.
Before I came into the Chamber, I knew that knowledge of the changed numbers in the report was common among a few residents who like to watch the Council from close up. Maybe that’s why Dale Smith decided to refuse residents the right to ask questions? I thought none of the councillors will ask about it and… I was wrong.
Oliver Kershaw-Dickson not only noticed that, but also asked about it. Even without that question, his contribution was valuable, but it’s worth underlining that one. He tried to get to the bottom of it, and the long silences and evasive answers from the Town Clerk clearly frustrated him. He didn’t lose his cool, but I bet he wasn’t happy about many of the answers he received.
There are two more councillors who clearly came prepared and with the will to contribute: Michael Yates and Shaun Cheeseman. Some of Michael Yates’ questions were weird, like they were prepared to throw other councillors off the scent, or just show that he is active, but some of the issues he touched on were legitimate. Shaun Cheeseman was himself—asked the right questions, as usual, too quietly for me to hear them clearly.
The rest of the councillors also participated, but much less and not as significantly. I could quote something from almost all of them, but this article… well. I doubt many people will read it to the end. So, if you are here, still reading—pat yourself on the back. You did it! Congrats, you wonderful human! You are clearly invested in a better future, or you want to be informed. That’s a good thing.
THE END
And finally, I’m starting to see the smallest flame of hope. Something is changing in STC. Yes – I was hopeful in past, and I was burned. The swamp is still there, but this dark, toxic fog of old-Labour’s swamp is pierced more and more by rays of fresh, warm light of truth. Maybe it’s too early to announce a new age, but certainly we are at the end of a very bad chapter in the history of Shirebrook.
Yes—STC raised our taxes again. But… somehow it hurts less knowing that finally Labour is not all-powerful. Their corrupted power is eroding and it’s just the beginning of their end…
Sylwester Zwierzynski
Lead picture: Chat GPT Image 1.5 model. The top picture was made with my prompt, and the bottom picture was made by AI without any prompting on my side, just after reading the draft version of the article.
