In tis case Central Government has made it clear that this legislation will change.

In particular the Section 182 exemption, (the two in a bar rule), the part that has made the whole legislation a nonsense will be scrapped.

Local authority's employees do not appear to like this change or the limbo that we are all in, until the new legislation comes into force. That does not mean that council officers should take advantage of this situation.

Paid offers of our councils are conspiring together against the public's interests and wishes. This is true certainly in the case of Oxford's and my own, They are making policy for us.

They have both prepared reports designed only to obtain endorsement for their policy and interpretation of the law from their elected members. Also by ignoring their other responsibilities under cultural and human rights legislation.

This has been achieved by supplying incomplete 'advice' to the meetings. Reports with such 'spin' that there really is now choice for the members, who trust that the information their oficers provide is full and objective.

I think it has at least been demonstrated here on Mudcat, the complicated nature of these laws? Members are being advised that 'the law is clear', in support of their actions, when it clearly is no such thing.

What does your local councillor say? They probably would not know what to say? Why not inform them?

It really is up to us to have the laws enforced that reflect the public's current wishes and not have our activities haunted by those that do not. Does anyone else out there consider that these two council's officers have acted in the public interest?