Dead Law — The Freedom of Information Act in Shirebrook

34 minutes ago

7 minutes read

I have just received a response to the Freedom of Information request I sent to STC on 16 November 2025. Better late than never, right? The response? A refusal to answer — with an extra cherry on top: another “typo” which, in my view, shows the response was written hastily and carelessly.

In my view, FOI Act in Shirebrook is a dead law. STC ignores it repeatedly and deliberately. I have been waiting since April 2022 for a full response about the heating system irregularities at the Leisure Centre. On the solar panels, I have been waiting since 2023. I am also still waiting on a response regarding the town booklet. You get the gist: sending a FOI request to a STC is pointless unless you are ready for long fight that ultimately end with asking for help from Information Commissioner’s Office.

IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE
As long as Labour runs STC, I know I will not get any answer to most crucial issues I raised with FOI. I am certain of it. And if you think I write these FOI requests for my own amusement — please know that I write them for all of us. It is a tedious, difficult and time-consuming process, but I do it to show readers truth about STC contracts with private businesses, questionable STC employment practices, and… your money.

THE TOWN CLERK IS OFF SICK — SO…
…her duties have been taken over by a locum Town Clerk. Did you know you now pay the wages of four (!) bureaucrats working in the Town Hall? No? Don’t worry — you will see the effects of this bloated bureaucracy on your next tax bill. STC is broke, and even a single new employee is well beyond its financial capabilities. Someone (you) will have to cover the cost.

Take it from someone who pays attention, has councillor experience and a “nose” for this: STC’s options are limited. Raise taxes — and raise them radically — or record a third consecutive deficit. Labour is against the wall and that’s why they selling assets. This will plug the hole in short term, but it wont be enough. Financial problems of STC are structural and quick fix is only implemented here to keep Labour above the water until next election. Labour also put rest of councillors under the same wall: allow to sell assets or else. This else is thrit deficit in teh row.

But how we get to that place? We have one of the highest local taxes in the UK and we still run deficits? How? This is where we circle back to my FOI.

LET’S START FROM THE BEGINNING
A while ago, I learned that Labour allowed the Town Clerk to employ her own brother at the Town Hall. To me, as a Pole, that was strange — in Poland there is a strict law forbidding the hiring of family members within the same departments of local government. Why? To avoid corruption, nepotism, favoritism and conflicts of interest.

In the UK, for some reason, nepotism is… legal. Councils sometimes introduce their own policies to rein in “creative Town Clerks with big families and friendly relationship with political leadership.” In essence- that was my FOI about. I wanted to find out whether STC followed its own procedure governing the employment of relatives by STC managers. So I requested copies of several documents to that effect. The Town Clerk’s response? Silence and then… sick leave. FOI executed Locum Town Clerk which, as you know- rejected it. Here is the darkly funny part: if regular Town Clerk answered, she would effectively be a witness in a matter concerning her own conduct. Do you see the conflict of interest?

I do. That’s why they hate me…

EMAILS, SCREENSHOTS, MEAT ON THE BONE
I hoped that our new Locum Town Clerk will be better than the ‘sick’ one. Sadly, she decided to toss my FOI request straight in the bin. Just read her response below — and pay attention to the “typo.”

Is this the new standard of STC? A reply that appears to have taken thirty seconds to write, with no basic grammar check? A blanket refusal that cites “GDPR” but names no specific exemption — as the Freedom of Information Act requires?

This is not an answer. Under the FOI Act, a public authority refusing a request must specify the exemption it relies on. “It’s staffing, it’s GDPR, goodbye” is not an exemption — it is a brush-off. And note what my request actually asked for: not one employee’s personal data, but the documents proving STC followed its own anti-nepotism policy — who sat on the panel, whether alternative management arrangements were put in place, whether conflict-of-interest declarations were made. Those are governance records. Hiding them behind “GDPR” tells you that something is odd. Documents are not people. GDPR doesn’t affect elected members in this case.

THE PROBLEM
The Locum Town Clerk rejected the entire request on the basis that it is personal data. But look at point 4 of my FOI, I don’t ask for any personal data of employee. I ask for names of elected members, public figures:
“Documents showing who sat on the interview/recruitment panel for this role, and confirming that the Town Clerk took no part in the recruitment process, as required by Policy 24.8.”

There is nothing personal in that. It is a question about procedure, about documents, about the role of elected members and the Town Clerk in a recruitment process. Recruitment of HER OWN BROTHER.

Here is a reminder of the standard we are dealing with: it was recently revealed (at last precept meeting) that STC pays for nine SIM cards for STC “heads of departments.” Thirty people on the STC payroll; nine ‘heads’ with a taxpayer-funded phone. And here is pure insanity: if STC have 9 ‘heads’ that means they have no more than 20 ‘ordinary’ workers. And that means each ‘head’, on average, manages 2.22 workers… Is this sound like efficient council or rather like Labour Party style cesspool of nepotism and shady practices?

Do you know why we don’t have nice things in Shirebrook? Because vast amount of our taxes are spent on wages of ‘public servants’ alone. 79.9% to be exact.

SCARY FIGURES
Here is what Labour don’t want you to know: Shirebrook and Old Bolsover have a broadly similar number of residents. According to another FOI I made in 2022, STC had 28 people on the payroll. Old Bolsover Town Council? 12. Twelve! We have double and then some. Do you see the pattern? Because I do. All the data in the following article was compiled from FOI responses and AGAR documents:
https://shirebrook247.com/2022/08/10/money-money-money-2022-charts-only/

SHIREBROOK OR BYZANTIUM?
Bolsover doesn’t have council run Lesiure Centre. But even if you add ten people who “work” at Shirebrook Leisure Centre (an extraordinary number of staff for a place that size) you are still left with six extra salaries compared to Bolsover Town Council. Who are those people? What they do? And here is the painful part: since I last checked the employment records of Old Bolsover and STC, STC has taken on another 1.5 posts (I know of – maybe more).

“DISCREPANCIES”
In my view, STC’s handling of its own procedures has been poor enough that transparency now seems to be the last thing on offer. Several of the documents I have reviewed — including the 2022/23 Finance Report and some of pellet invoices— contain what look to me like clear errors. On the biomass/pellet heating system, I have been raising questions since my 2022 FOI and have yet to see them resolved. On the solar installation, the invoice I have seen records only the amount owed — not a single line of usage, price, production of energy. All you can learn from that ‘invoice’ is just how much we have to pay. That’s why I say: Shirebrook net-zero contracts must be audited!

RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
That is why so many committed Labour figures stand for co-option as Independents. Not one of them admitted to being Labour. And even when they won — with the help of the remaining Labour members on STC — and I sent a media enquiry asking about their political affiliation, not a single one confirmed membership of the Labour Party. Zero!

Only one who replied was Cllr Yates, but his answers were unhinged and deluded. He made demands before answering. Just look at one of Cllr Yates’s replies. He sent me five emails — in none of them did he confirm any Labour affiliation.

I think someone forgot to explain him how it works- its journalist/blogger who ask the questions and it’s elected politicians who should answer them. Not other way around. This weird “mansplain” comment? It was bait and he swallowed it like a young dolphin. Councillor should not speak like that in reply for legitimate media enquiry- no matter what he believe or not. My alleged party affiliation has no meaning here- I’m writing as independent blogger, not some party official. Councillor- your party affiliation is not hill worth dying on. Your party have pellet scandal for that, HMOs scandal for that, solar panel for that, Village Hall scandal for that, hiring practices for that! Should I continue? Eh… nevermind. Cllr Yates and every single Labour on STC is scared to publicly admit- I’M LABOUR and I’m fine with that.

Even more: I’m not surprised Yates is ashamed of his political affiliation. From my point of view, today’s Labour is a corrupt, globalist cabal of Fabian psychopaths with mission to destroy English nation, industry and culture. And they doing pretty good job with that…

THE END — BUT NOT REALLY
“What I should do with this FOI?” I asked myself that questions since I got this email from Locum Town Clerk. I slept on it (wink wink to the previous article) and I decided to… let it go. Now you know that Labour and Town Clerk hiring practices is one of main reasons of STC financial problems. Labour majority at the STC means that nothing can be done about it now. Maybe after next elections?