top of page

Transcripts and Policies...

Most benches support the public. This one supports an entire administrative ecosystem.

More coming soon......

 <d############@e.com> 
Thu 23 Apr, 12:14
​
A councillor contacted me using what appears to be a personal email address. Given the amount of attention paid to policies and procedures elsewhere, I can only assume there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. After all, GDPR surely cannot be expected to apply equally to everyone. That would be far too straightforward.

Public meeting recording:

Suspended orders so i can speak
as a member of the public but.....

...the Cllrs eye roll was arguably the most detailed contribution of the meeting.

eye roll26.mp4
Blue Arrow Icon

13th May 2026 - The Bench Chronicles:

1.3 tc.mp4

Listen to the actual recording:

A simple bench somehow evolved into meetings, emails, complaints, more emails, and enough paperwork to make the bench the hardest-working seat in town. Two years later, the only thing that's moved faster than the correspondence is the blame.

1.2

The councillors' behaviour, particularly calling out members of the public, was by far the most interesting part. I think they forgot I was recording.

tc meeting - my 3 minutes.mp4

Impressive. How many action items did this non-discussion successfully overlook?

DB Council statement.mp4

Derek Batsey: Transcript from 13th May 2026

​

Key Issues Not Addressed in the Complaint Response

  • Why was the bench owner not contacted before the removal decision was made?

  • Why was the bench owner not invited to attend or speak at the meeting where the bench was discussed?

  • Why was another bench owner allowed to make representations to councillors while the affected family was not?

  • Why was the process agreed in the November 2025 minutes apparently not followed?

  • Were notices ever placed on the bench, as instructed by the Committee?

  • Were dated photographs taken as required by the November 2025 decision?

  • What evidence supported the claim that the bench was a "serious tripping hazard"?

  • Was a formal risk assessment ever carried out?

  • Why were there no recorded concerns throughout 2025, only for the bench to become a "serious tripping hazard" in January 2026?

  • Why did the Council fail to explain what specifically made the bench "not in keeping" with cemetery standards?

  • Were other benches assessed against the same standards?

  • Why did concerns about other benches appear to receive significantly less urgency?

  • Why did it take 22 days to formally acknowledge the complaint submitted on 24 February 2026?

  • Did the promised meetings with the complainant, staff and Cemetery Working Party actually take place?

  • Was the promised investigation report ever produced?

  • If a report exists, why has it never been published or disclosed?

  • Who reviewed the evidence and reached the final conclusions?

  • Why has the Subject Access Request submitted in February 2026 still not been fully resolved?

  • Were councillors' personal email accounts searched for information relevant to the SAR?

  • Why did the Council admit administrative and communication failures but provide no clear accountability?

  • What action was taken against those responsible for the admitted failures?

  • What lessons were learned and what changes were implemented?

  • What advice was received from Newark & Sherwood District Council regarding the alleged data protection issue?

  • Why was that advice not disclosed?

  • Why did the Council acknowledge internal mistakes while expecting the family to restart the bench application process?

The Biggest Unanswered Question

If the Council admits administrative errors, communication failures, human error and verbal permission being given, why has it never fully explained how those failures occurred, who was responsible, and why the consequences fell on the family rather than the Council itself?

DB Council statement.mp4

Derek Batsey: Transcript from 13th May 2026

1.1

​

Key Issues Not Addressed in the Complaint Response

  • Why was the bench owner not contacted before the removal decision was made?

  • Why was the bench owner not invited to attend or speak at the meeting where the bench was discussed?

  • Why was another bench owner allowed to make representations to councillors while the affected family was not?

  • Why was the process agreed in the November 2025 minutes apparently not followed?

  • Were notices ever placed on the bench, as instructed by the Committee?

  • Were dated photographs taken as required by the November 2025 decision?

  • What evidence supported the claim that the bench was a "serious tripping hazard"?

  • Was a formal risk assessment ever carried out?

  • Why were there no recorded concerns throughout 2025, only for the bench to become a "serious tripping hazard" in January 2026?

  • Why did the Council fail to explain what specifically made the bench "not in keeping" with cemetery standards?

  • Were other benches assessed against the same standards?

  • Why did concerns about other benches appear to receive significantly less urgency?

  • Why did it take 22 days to formally acknowledge the complaint submitted on 24 February 2026?

  • Did the promised meetings with the complainant, staff and Cemetery Working Party actually take place?

  • Was the promised investigation report ever produced?

  • If a report exists, why has it never been published or disclosed?

  • Who reviewed the evidence and reached the final conclusions?

  • Why has the Subject Access Request submitted in February 2026 still not been fully resolved?

  • Were councillors' personal email accounts searched for information relevant to the SAR?

  • Why did the Council admit administrative and communication failures but provide no clear accountability?

  • What action was taken against those responsible for the admitted failures?

  • What lessons were learned and what changes were implemented?

  • What advice was received from Newark & Sherwood District Council regarding the alleged data protection issue?

  • Why was that advice not disclosed?

  • Why did the Council acknowledge internal mistakes while expecting the family to restart the bench application process?

The Biggest Unanswered Question

If the Council admits administrative errors, communication failures, human error and verbal permission being given, why has it never fully explained how those failures occurred, who was responsible, and why the consequences fell on the family rather than the Council itself?

bottom of page