• Conflict of interest suspected in the bid process
  • Officer in charge of bid process has links to evangelical church bidding
  • Local gov procurement expert damns council’s process
  • Calls for bid process to be restarted with greater transparency
  • Legal action being prepared against council

In our last report, we scrutinised documents we were shown that outlined the process the council used for assessing the future of the Town Hall, in particular bids that would have ensured the building would have remained in community hands.

While we were looking through the documents, we were tipped off that there was another potential conflict of interest involving the officer advising on, and evaluating, the bids. This brings into question the neutrality of the bidding process – as well as the flawed methodology employed in the process we outlined in the previous article, a major breach of the procedure may have occurred.

One of the bidders, as we briefly mentioned in previous article, is a local evangelical church, which we shall not name for now. They are pretty much awash with money, having several rich backers and a tithe system that has allowed them to raise millions in funds to increase their property portfolio.

It is a member of the powerful Evangelical Alliance, a growing organisation of churches which, while doing a fair bit of good work at home and abroad, have a stridently homophobic attitude and advocate gay and lesbians ‘transform’ and join the church. They are quite a vocal bunch, and not fond of dissenting voices: organisations that advocate that gay love is, well, love, are thrown out of the organisation. But my personal views on this should not taint my oversight of the process, right?

What struck us about the leaked notes on this bid was how positive the evaluator judged the bid, in both language and willingness to take it forward.

Screen Shot 2018-07-04 at 13.13.44

Compare to the community bid

Screen Shot 2018-07-04 at 13.14.23

This is simply untrue. Yet if it wasn’t for getting sight of this leaked document, this would have been hidden from sight. Rendering a document non-public allows a multitude of sins.

Before we get to the information about why this might be so, and why the process looks subject to a conflict of interest, we were contacted by a procurement expert / Member of the Institute of Purchase and Supply who came across our campaign. She was horrified by what she saw

…really looks like the weightings prove that the council are favouring certain bidders which in my mind is unethical and against procurement guidelines…


…I am sure they will have broken more than one guideline. I recently had to back off an interview panel because I knew one of the candidates and I fail to see how someone with a personal interest in a bidder can form a major part in the assessment and awarding process.

(that bit will become clearer further down the page)


I know the govt depth I worked for would never have allowed such a shambles!


Is it just a lack of professionalism, or is something more sinister happening?

The aforementioned officer (who had control of the evaluation process and wrote the leaked report) is a key member of the church bidder’s sister church in Nottingham, a fellow member of the Evangelical Alliance. His family members are also personnel at the church, and he has conducted missionary work on their behalf.

Screen Shot 2018-07-04 at 13.25.28

website screengrab

We have strong evidence to suggest that the officer did not declare this potential conflict of interest and offer to be recused from the process. In not doing so, we believe his professional neutrality could not be guaranteed, and the process was thus inherently flawed.

More evidence to back this up comes from a further reading of the document. While the rules towards bids are applied stringently on the community bid, with no supporting evidence requested, extra time given, the church bid gets an unprecedented extension to its bid

Screen Shot 2018-07-04 at 13.34.04

We have not named the officer to avoid embarrassment to himself and his colleagues, and we hope that his failure to disclose this conflict of interest was an oversight, rather than a clear case of pushing through his personally preferred bid. Either way, we do feel that the process is invalid and the council should rethink the process from scratch, with much greater transparency and emphasis on retaining the building for public use. Flogging it to friends is not an option.

I am aware at least one party is ready to issue a legal challenge made via the Local Government Ombudsman and other routes if this is not the case and the council bundles through the report’s findings to be voted on by Full Council.

The Town Hall should represent the best of local democracy, a monument to transparency. Tonight we will find out if those who sit in it are worthy to do so.





  • Community bids already stacked against commercial bidders.

  • Council valuations show huge uncertainty.

  • Community benefit undervalued.

  • Lip-service and nothing else?


We were shown confidential documents earlier this week relating to, amongst other things, the future of the Town Hall. They have rejected the community bid to keep the building in the hands of Beeston, whose predecessors built the hall.

As we have shown in previous stories, severe mismanagement of the council from the current administration has led to reserves being plundered, staff morale crashing, massive legal and temp staffing fees and, ultimately, the flogging off of assets.

The most visible -not to say symbolic -asset to be flogged was Beeston Town Hall, mooted for giving to developers to plug the holes in budgets, or simply demolished. After a public outcry, councillors lied and claimed they’d never had demolition as a possible outcome: despite having it as an option on their public consultancy form!

Under pressure, they then opened up a process where community groups could put in bids to run it and keep it as it was always intended: a public building.

The documents we have been leaked reveal this process looks like a sham designed to doom all bids to fail. 

Could we also be cheeky scamps and ask that if you appreciate the work we do, it would be very helpful to drop us a few quid to help us continue? Thomas and I both spend many hours and drink much coffee digging through the stuff certain people don’t want digging through, and it would be hugely appreciated if you help pay for the time we’re not earning money elsewhere.  You can easily and swiftly put a few bob our way here:

Tom Roberts reports why.

The council obtained two independent valuations on the Town Hall which valued it at £425,000 and £1,000,000. For those with eyes it is clear that these values differ wildly and this itself should be cause for alarm. It is frankly irresponsible of the council to not obtain a third valuation when one is nearly two and a half times larger than the other.


It is unclear what would explain the £575,000 difference in value. It is the opinion of the architect that was commissioned by the Co-operative bidder than this may represent the difference between the value of the building “as is” and the value post renovation. Under the Co-operative’s unsubmitted plans, which included planned additions of shower blocks and a kitchen that total renovation and repair would cost approximately £800,000.

Amusingly, if you are living in a council property and commission your own repairs you are expected to provide the council a minimum of three quotations to assess best value.

As part of the request for community bids the price requested was for offers “in excess of £500,000.” This number is significant for several reasons, not least that it fails to match either the valuations or the average of the valuations.


The council reports provide a clear reasoning, during expression of interest two commercial bidders made offers of “around £0.5mn.” This is the figure that community bids were expected to make offers above and beyond. They were already being expected to match and indeed exceed offers made from the commercial sector. This is hardly in keeping with first preference being given to community bidders.

Beestonia understands that neither of the bids has matched this £500,000 figure and the Co-operative expressly pulled out because they regarded it as too high and it is, in fact, higher than one of the valuations obtained for the building.

The following is the weighting approved by the council and used to evaluate the bidders. As you can see the purchase price offered by bidders. The community benefit, the actual point of allowing community bidders to engage, accounted for a measly 5% of the Bid’s total score. This is seven times less important than the purchase price offered.

If we accept the value of the proposed use this, itself about the contribution the building can make to the local community, then the total value of the community portion of the community bid is approximately 20% of the total value of their bid.


It is further understood that there was an alternative measure proposed that would have assigned the community benefit a far greater importance, approximately 27%. Combine with proposed us this would have meant community use and benefit would account for approximately 40% of the total bid value. This was rejected by councillors at a previous meeting.

Councillors were reminded that both bids offered less financially than the commercial offers and that due to their nature they would be unable to apply national non-domestic rates (NNDR). In layman’s terms this is the building’s business rates obligation and the councillors are informed this will cost the council £10,000 a year.  There was also a heavy implication that they would need to justify their decision.

The Council also did not possess several documents that bidders had expected. Part of the council’s justification in selling off the building is the running costs are unsustainable due to repairs needed but no quantity surveyor’s report has been performed.

The Co-operative informed me that they had tried to commission a report, due to the nature of their renovations, but found the cost prohibitive for what was at the time a speculative process. The estimates they secured average approximately £4000, due to the size of the building and the complications of its current state.

Based on a conversation with the council the Co-operative found the building may need in medium term renovation work:

  • • The drains are entirely located at the back of the building, necessitating a system of pumps to properly parse effluence from kitchens and bathrooms near the front.
  • • The plumbing itself is in reasonable condition but apparently obsolete and as parts become scarcer will require replacement.
  • The boiler is in good condition but obsolete and has approximately 2-3 years of replacement parts available before it also needs replacing.
  • The basement regularly floods and requires pumping in wet weather to prevent this flooding.
  • The lift is obsolete (meaning parts are no longer available) and no longer compliant with modern disability law and as a council worker told me “you take it at your peril.”

Again, the Co-operative’s architect on estimated the work required at approximately £800,000. This is likely more than the current value of the building and is close to the highest estimated value.

The reports and surveys provided did vary dramatically in how up to date they were. Whilst many were from 2017, the most recent Insurance Risk Management report provided was from 2012. The Asbestos report came from 2008. There was no structural survey provided at all.

There is also the question of running costs. These were estimated at a whopping £107,748, an eye-watering sum by anyone’s standards. Whilst this estimate reflects the council’s current usage it includes the £25,600 in NNDR that none of the submitted community bids would be expected to pay.

It also includes the electricity cost as £26,188, this seems high but is explained by the council running their servers from the Town Hall. A standard- sized server, approximately 850watts, costs around £900 a year to run and the council has an entire server room within the Town Hall. The cost in 2017/18 as reported in the council documents was £22,260. Around £4000 less than the figure bidders were supplied.

Finally, groups were expected to provide significant detail whilst the council themselves remained vague. One of the biggest issues raised to me by the Co-operative and the Community Interest Bid was that there was no timescale for the Council vacating the building.

In the Co-operative’s case this provided a significant uncertainty that contributed to their decision to withdraw. They would either be required to postpone their purchase for an undefined period, making it difficult to reassure investors, or would rely on a rental income from the council that would be lower than the cost of repaying the investment.

The Community Interest Bid expressed similar anxiety around this withdrawal period. They would presumably be expected to arrange contracts with community interest groups, secure volunteers and organise their calendar without a clear idea when they would be allowed to enter the building.

In both cases this uncertainty, beyond that the council would have no presence in the “medium to long-term,” affected the bids.


It seems clear that the Community groups faced significant hurdles in attempting to secure the future of the Town Hall. Bids were expected to be “in excess of” the £500,000 offered by commercial bidders, a significant hurdle for non-profits. This is despite the building’s actual value being unclear and the council’s independent valuations varying wildly. A lack of a structural survey, despite assertions of the building’s need for repairs, represented a significant financial obstacle for many bidders and required them to over-estimate renovation costs. In this context, Beestonia asks how serious the council was about this community bidding process, and how fairly those bids were treated?

This is an on-going story and we will keep you updated as we receive responses from the community bids. As the council looks in deep trouble on the Redwood Crescent scandal, with possible criminal proceedings a very real prospect, we can imagine they aren’t too willing to give us a response: nevertheless, we will print when they do.


Doctor Coup

Due to a very busy few months relaunching The Beestonian magazine, setting up a new exhibition, looking after a toddler AND then doing my actual day job, I was resting this blog for a while. Co-writer Tom has also just done his finals, so was also indisposed sorting a post-uni career.

But a hugely intriguing but of gossip makes its way into my inbox, and while always reluctant to link to anything that comes from Guido Fawkes aka the thirsty much-chinny Paul Staines, but they’re reporting on a rather fumbled coup attempt from Cllr Dr John Doddy, who when not claiming the council budget will alleviate cancer (see Beestonia passim) is now positioning himself as John Redwood to Soubry’s John Major:

Local Government Association Agree With Beestonia: Broxtowe Is Unsustainable Under the Tories.


We have both been ridiculously busy recently with our non-Beestonian careers, so apologies for the lack of new posts here. This hasn’t been for a lack of material; rather, we have so much it can get dizzying. Broxtowe staff continue to leak details of mass dysfunction, and soon we will have time to sit down and put up the worst excesses. Bear with us: the whole process of research, corroboration and write up takes an awful lot of time. We are hugely aware that one loose allegation, one incorrect fact will see us hit with legal letters we would struggle to challenge with limited resources. And if you are from a proper news organisation, consider lending a hand, would you?

If you’d like to help us keep running this site, a donation to our PayPal ensures we can happily turn down other jobs and concentrate on this work: feel free to put a few quid our way here:



One development we must put up immediately is that of a recent professional study of Broxtowe’s finances.

When we first made allegations that the council was squandering money at a terrifying rate, we were ignored, with Freedom of Information requests stonewalled. Then, with more insiders willing to disclose information the opposition parties at Broxtowe got on board and raised questions in the chamber, to which the work we have done here was ridiculed and we were labelled fantasists by Tory councillors (more on our complaint to BBC later). Other Tories threatened us with legal action. We were scaremongers, we were liars, we were pushing our own particular agenda. Not once did a single Tory councillor admit there might be a problem.

We reported that huge chunks of cash reserves were being used to pay off employees, hire lawyers and buy in interim staff at eye-watering rates. “We are the party of fiscal responsibility” we were told in response.

Step forward former Leeds City Council finance director, Alan Gay OBE. Mr Gay was tasked by the Local Government Association to use his extensive experience to evaluate the council’s budget for 2018-19.

This is the budget that we said would lead to the council collapsing within 18 months, and the ruling Conservatives claimed was strong, stable, and would rather amazingly help cure cancer. Ambitious!

This is the budget that we noted made no provision for the introduction of Universal Credit in Broxtowe later this year; would lead to further degradation of services and the attendant poor staff morale, and see the Town Hall and other assets sold off to plug the gap; and the ruling Conservatives claimed was visionary, fair and sustainable.

Mr Gay is, therefore, a much better person to ask. So he examined the details and found that no, the budget wasn’t sustainable. Due to the council’s massive spending on legal fees – see Beestonia passim – Broxtowe Borough Council was instead being driven into collapse, joining Northamptonshire and others in Tory councils that have slashed so many cuts into their services they’ve effectively bled to death:

‘Together this has meant a significant reduction in the council’s financial resources, and has therefore required major savings and efficiencies to be implemented in order to compensate.

‘The continued reduction in the council’s income and a further planned council tax freeze means that Broxtowe is now beginning to use reserves at a significant rate and must achieve recurring savings of £1m per annum by 2019/20 in order to remain financially stable.

‘This is a big challenge for a council of this scale and it is hard to imagine how this can be achieved without a real impact on service delivery.’ Alan Gay

The recommendation to raise council tax will most likely not be implemented – Cllr Richard Jackson is too much of an ideologue terrified of the damage that would do to his parliamentary aspirations to even consider a raise. Plus, there are elections next year….

So the council reserves will be drained, services cut and property sold off. This is YOUR council, and it’s being asset-stripped by a guy who will see a significant increase in his other wage packet should Broxtowe be swallowed up by the much better paying Nottinghamshire County Council and its responsibilities delegated in his direction.


Which segues nicely into our latest call to arms:

Town Hall updated poster 1st May (2)-1


We mentioned in a recent post how our attendance in the public gallery at a council meeting led to abuse from three councillors: Mel Crow, Philip Owen and Shane Easom. We duly reported these smears and attempts at intimidation to the council and promptly received a letter back. So far, so good, and we readied ourselves for the findings of the subsequent investigation, which we were told would be dealt with in 20 working days.

That was in early March – remember those heady days of Easterly Beasts, Oscar Ceremonies and it still getting dark early?  Those have long passed, but my inbox and front door mat remain free of response.

I rang earlier and as assured I’ll get a response soon. We shall see. Still, I urge you to join me in the public gallery at the next full council meeting on Wednesday 16th May. The ruling party are doing everything they can to shut you out of YOUR council so they can disamantle it with inpunity. Let’s show them that isn’t going to happen with us watching.







  • Syrian refugees ‘put at risk due to data breach by councillors’

  • Incident covered up, no investigation initiated.

  • Council takes action to deter public attending meetings


Into spring, and still, the shenanigans at the council continue. While the days grow lighter, our findings get darker. We will now present evidence on why the Council are putting lives at risk (and then covering it up) and how they are purposely doing everything they can to stop YOU finding out what they are up to.


A couple of years ago, Broxtowe took in four Syrian families, selected from refugee camps


Good to hear Cllr Owen!

after being rendered homeless due to the ongoing war. A noble gesture, even if our old friend Councillor Philip Owen voted to end voluntarily welcoming child refugees through his Councillor role at Nottinghamshire County Council. After a member of the public shouted from the gallery ‘How do you sleep at night?” he leered up at the gallery and gloated ‘Very well, thank you’.

However, some humanity prevailed at Broxtowe, and families were settled. These were, to quote our MP…

 …particularly vulnerable Syrian refugees. Some have experienced torture, physical or sexual abuse, some are made more vulnerable by disability or illness; all have had to flee their beloved country in fear of their lives. We can only imagine the terrors they have experienced.

So why, when they arrived, did their personal details get treated with such disdain?

In 2016, a member of the public was passing the former Crown Post Office when they noticed a piece of paper on the pavement. Evidently a public-spirited individual, they picked up the sheet, and before disposing of, had a glance at what was printed. They were horrified to find that the paper was of a highly confidential nature, containing as it did identifying details of the refugee families, with their full names (including children), ages and addresses visible.

Realising the gravity of this data, the member of the public took it immediately to Foster Avenue, and handed it in.

This serious breach should have led to an investigation into how such confidential information could be treated without care. The only four people privy to the data were two councillors (whose names we are withholding here), Chief Executive Ruth Hyde, and Cllr. Richard Jackson. One of these people was responsible for the breach, but our sources tell us that NO formal investigation ensued and no disciplinary action taken.

This is a potentially huge breach of data protection law, and we will be forwarding our findings to the relevant authorities to investigate.

We have heard several other stories of data involving members of the public being treated with such scorn by councillors, and are working to verify these right now. It seems like Broxtowe don’t really give a fig when it comes to info about YOU, but when it comes to hiding what THEY do, they are masters.



It is difficult to hold a council to account when they prefer not to tell you anything. One way to sneak around this obvious hurdle is the use of Freedom of Information requests, the humble FoI. We have submitted, between us, several requests and not a single one has received a real answer.

Requests for both the council’s finance data and proceeds from the town hall development received a stock automated response on the 8th of February (promising reply within 20 days) and have not been addressed since. Other requests have received woolly-mouthed deflections that serve no purpose but to protect the council’s information.

Our personal highlight was “please could clarify what you mean by the word ‘recent’.”

This will have consequences for the council as they are obliged by law to respond properly within 20 working days. The council may only breach this obligation if they do not hold the information (they do) or the cost to find the information would be too onerous (it isn’t). As such, they have been reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

This is, however, online information. An email to all council officers, leaked to us, explains that there is an increasing crackdown on the members of the public who are in the public gallery. The council’s interim deputy chief exec has made a point of demanding that the public sit as far back as possible and leave as quickly as they can. Beestonia assumes that this is probably directed at us.

We will be inviting you all to the next full council meeting. It’s time for them to realise that they serve us.



We finish by adding this without comment, save for the one our mole sent ‘What a way to raise morale!’.

Untitled design

…”you have been warned” the message of all great Bond villains there, being used to sign off a council email. Thankfully when Beeston finally declares independence we can be assured we have the ruthless (Ruth – Less, get it?) leadership we need.

Back soon!





All is well in the state of Broxtowe. We have always been at war with Eastasia. These are days of milk and honey. That is, if the latest hurried-out Conservative campaign leaflet is to be believed. Councillors (and rather dodgily, the Tory Mayor) are shown in soft-focus

tory leaf

photos grinning at the camera in various parts of the Borough, supporting community projects (as long as they don’t take more than five minutes, and they can keep their shoes clean), and saying what a great job they are doing.

Crisis? What crisis? There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SEE HERE. Life is rosy and they have in no way whatsoever engineered a crisis that will, in the words of a high-ranking Broxtowe officer ‘Kill this council within 18 months’. No mention of the scandal and cover-up presently not being very well covered-up at the council. No mention of the hundreds of thousands being haemorrhaged monthly on that scandal; no mention of the risk council tenants are under due to mandatory gas-safety checks not being conducted; no mention of the way that they are throwing up everything they can to stop you knowing what your council tax is going on. None of that. All is fine, as the leaky water main on Kirkbride Court isn’t leaking anymore*. Be grateful plebs, and move on. We are in control. Back to bed with you.

Similarly, this halcyon vision is one that is shared by the right honourable member for Charnwood Broxtowe, Anna Soubry MP. Her latest email also sees Broxtowe as basking in the sunlit uplands, with the ruling Tories community heroes bending over backwards to please those they serve. Hurrah!

Now cast your mind back to 2014, and events up in Kimberley. The local town council was accused, by a local neo-nazi named Darren Warner, of misappropriating funds, on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. However, although the council isn’t organised on political grounds, Broxtowe Labour Councillors were also town councillors, so she called for an immediate investigation. This is Soubry in September 2014

…there is concern that the Council’s reserves have all but been spent and Councillors are consistently denied financial details.
I have already written to the district auditors and will take up all allegations with the Borough Council’s legal department. It now appears there will be a by-election for the two vacancies and I hope voters will exercise their right and send a clear message to the controlling Labour group that they are out of order, undemocratic and spending tax payers’money irresponsibly.

An audit and investigation went to work, unpaid and hard-working town councillors were dragged through the mud and… the investigation concluded that the town council was actually well-ran and financially sound. Did Anna apologise? Nope. Instead, she ignored it, and took the Darren Warner, BNP organiser and frequent contributor to the proudly racist Nottingham Patriot website to meet then-minister Nick Boles as a ‘valued community activist’. As for the councillors who were absolutely exonerated, despite being dragged through the mud? Well, that mud stuck, and they lost their seats in the Borough elections the following year. Soubry was reelected as an MP. Nastiness clearly pays off.

So now a REAL scandal is happening on her doorstep (well, the doorstep to her office in Beeston; I have no idea what is happening over in leafy Leicestershire) is she calling out for an investigation? Is she sending out a warning that money is being squandered on a totally avoidable, staggeringly mismanaged scandal? Of course not. It’s as if she puts party first, constituents second.

But now the scandal/cover-up isn’t just a thing happening in the background, a buzz of trouble over on Foster Avenue. It is hitting home, and it’s hitting YOU. It’s hitting the council finance and could very well see the end of the council and the vital services it provides. Slip off your rose-tinted spectacles. Let’s look at our latest findings. They make for Grimm (sic) reading….

*leaks in other areas of the council, however, are rather rife.


A further issue with the investigation is that there are significant questions over some testimony provided. Decisions about the suspension of chief officers can only be taken by:

  • The council, or
  • An appropriate committee, or
  • The CEO acting under delegated authority

This is a limited number of individuals. However, according to several sections of Richard Powell’s report the decision to suspend one chief officer was taken by former Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Shane Flynn. At a separate point, Powell also states that the decision was taken by Chief Executive Officer, Ruth Hyde.

However, reports from a secret council meeting allege that the officer was told explicitly by Ruth Hyde that this was not the case. A quoted email from Ruth Hyde says that Ruth was “not responsible for the decision to suspend you as I was not here at the time.”

Our source suggests that there are two options. That Ruth Hyde lied in an email to a suspended officer and caused unnecessary harm due to the absence of any review, or she lied to Richard Powell about her role in sanctioning the suspension. If the former is true, then the council are liable for additional distress, if the latter is true then it casts doubts over the investigation itself and whether this suspension was handled properly.

Whilst we cannot reveal many details in the report they make for harrowing reading. The implications of this scandal reach far beyond the financial and affect countless lives. At the council meeting, the Conservative council voted against the union appeal, with little regard for the consequences.


Those following our work will have noticed the liberal use we make of the council’s open finance data. This is because it allows us to confidently state how much the council is spending by checking our figures against invoices. The Council are under obligation from their publication scheme to publish this data quarterly and it was last scheduled for an update in January 2018.

This update did not happen until late February 2018 and the council have now extended the deadline for the next quarter’s publication into May 2018. 3 months after the date it was published, not the date it was supposed to be released. This may seem petty but has a real effect on our work: despite publishing in February the released data contains no payments from 2018.


For us, this is a problem, it means that we now must wait a month longer to obtain figures for January. This makes it harder for us to scrutinise spending before the crucial budget and for the public to hold their government to account.

Sadly, this is a bit of a theme at the council with our FoI requests going either entirely unanswered or consistently deflected. A request for the financial data remains unanswered despite the council publicly releasing the data; estimates of proceeds from residential sites in the Beeston Square redevelopment has been unanswered and our request for specifics on the staff suspensions has turned into a farce of clarification and specification, now into its third month.

This has become so unmanageable that we have been faced with no choice but to report the council to the information commissioner, who oversees the public’s right to know. We’ll let you know how that proceeds.


Spending continues apace, as ever I (Thomas) am tracking spending with solicitors, Browne Jacobssen and the Venn Group Ltd who provide agency staff. Spending with the Venn Group sits at approximately £165,000 for the last 3 months and Brown Jacobsen have trousered a further £35,000.

Whilst I cannot provide a precise figure, due to the way the council releases data it appears that total spending on Agency staff at approximately £435,855.91 and on Legal fees at £131,500.68. If we include the settlements that have been paid then the total cost of this investigation appears to rest just over £600,000 in the last 9 months alone.

In this context it seems apropos to mention that the audit of the council’s 2016/17 accounts has been delayed from September 2017 and is expected to be delivered at some point this year. The reason given was that the auditors “wished to undertake further work and make additional enquiries of Council officers.” Which is certainly curious, even if we cannot confirm a link to our investigation.

Less amusingly it seems clear how vital this £600,000 figure is. The Policy and Performance Committee agreed on 18 January 2017 to an Employee Savings Programme intended to address a £600,000 per annum budget gap over the then medium-term financial strategy period.


Due to an exam the following morning, Thomas could not attend the full council meeting to discuss and vote on the council budget, so, with notepad and camera, I (Matt) went down to live-blog the event via FB. I’ve been to many, many council meetings at the Town Hall, but never have I seen such contempt for democracy, such utter cognitive dissonance, such disassembling, such absolute outright pomposity. To top it all, it ended with a report filed with the council complaints department after Tory councillors, clearly rattled by our revelations, verbally abused me in the chamber.

This was where the colossal mismanagement was made apparent. Broxtowe has been forced into dipping into its reserves to accommodate the cost of the scandal; to the tune of £1.2 million. Remember, this is a self-inflicted, avoidable wound. Cllr Richard Jackson, perhaps distracted elsewhere, has failed to negotiate a better central government with Westminster. Does he not have the same charm as other Tory Councils, stuffed with extra cash to stop their MP rebelling? Or, by letting Broxtowe suffer, his own career prospects as a future MP brighten considerably?

No plans have been put in for the introduction of Universal Credit to Broxtowe, scheduled for Autumn. This will very likely see a significant rise in rent arrears: Broxtowe are moving towards rents being collected weekly, and as the move over to UC leaves the recipient without anything for 6 weeks, will most likely lead to eviction notices flying out. Not a penny has been set aside to cushion this.

Opposition councillors stood up to express their utter dismay at the general situation. Council officers at senior level haven’t just been telling me that the council will, under current conditions, collapse within 18 months. Several have put forward this opinion, and when it was mentioned by opposition councillors, the ruling party jeered.

When the subject of the scandal/ investigation/cover up came up (since we revealed the story, councillors are getting the item on the agenda without fear) they prevaricated, obstructed or plainly ignored the question. Once Tory instead tried to talk about housing, despite this having nothing to do with the budget. His intention? After stinging attacks from the opposition, he would throw up five minutes of tedium, a droning word-salad to stop the attack.

Cllr John Doddy (Cons) went down an even more bizarre path, praising Cllr Jackson of a ‘radical, wonderful budget’ which, due to some money going towards parks, ‘Will significantly tackle the obesity crisis, which in turn will bring down rates of cancer’. Honestly. Vote austerity, eliminate leukaemia.

And on it went. Impassioned speeches from the opposition benches swotted away with every democracy-degrading technique in the playbook. Real concerns of Broxtonians don’t touch these people.

Then sleepy Cllr Phil Owen snapped awake, and stood up “I’m fed up with Beeston” said Broxtowe’s most bumptious man “I’m fed up with the moaning, all this about public toilets, about the Town Hall, everything. I’m fed up with Beeston’

On the public benches, a collective gasp. But he was far from finished.

“I’m fed up with those awful people, Beeston’s own Grimm Brothers writing fairy tales about us and the death of democracy. Fed up with it”, and as I heard the woman sitting next to me say “I think they mean you”, the Tory benches all glanced over, smirking and laughing.

Now, the thing about council meetings is that the public merely observes procedures. They do not have any right to say anything, they have no right of reply. So I had to have this happen to me without any chance of pointing out this was a slander, lest I was ejected. This was not a passing incident. This was targeted, designed to intimidate. And it did.

It didn’t stop there. After the meeting, I was talking to a fellow member of the public, who was telling me how depressed she was at witnessing, for the first time, a full council meeting. Suddenly, our conversation was interrupted by an irate Cllr Shane Easom,

Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 19.19.29

Glare he is: Shane Easom

currently under investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman for the mistreatment of a local resident (see Beestonia passim). Visibly angry, he jabbed a finger at me and launched into a tirade about the blog mentioning that he was fined for letting his dog poo in public, and not clearing it up. We thought this a very appropriate metaphor, but Easom didn’t want it brought up. He then mentioned that the dog had died two years ago, before swearing at me and storming out.

However, this was a two-pronged attack, and his former partner, Cllr Mel Crow, was next: “That story’s ten years old. How dare you, the dog died two years ago under tragic circumstances” Whilst Beestonia appreciates the implication that we developed time travel technology it raises one, speculative eyebrow at the implication that we did so simply to kill an innocent dog.

Also, when it comes to murderous brutality to canines, it’s the Tories who have strong form.


David Cameron, hunting foxes.

“You are disgusting’ continued the elected member for Kimberley, and one of the Conservatives top -tips to be a future MP.

“Not clearing up dog mess is disgusting” I countered.

“What you write is rubbish and lies” she shouted, now really annoyed. “Well, sue me” I replied: and believe me, she would. She is a lawyer, apparently, and would jump at the chance of serving us with a writ.

It shook me up, and shocked the other members of the public who witnessed it. “They can’t do that, can they?” asked one. “Report that immediately,” another told me. And so I did. It was an unsavoury, seemingly coordinated attempt to intimidate, and I hope Broxtowe take appropriate action. I’m not sure how much faith I have in the complaints process but will take to the ombudsman if necessary. I hope the ombudsman is local, and doesn’t have much else on.

A consolation is that our journalism has clearly shaken them. As someone once said, “If your journalism doesn’t make you enemies, you’re in public relations”.


While I was still sitting gob-smacked at Cllr Phil Owen’s comment that Thomas and i were ‘Beeston’s Grimm Brothers’, my neighbour in the public benches said “He acts more like a character from kid’s book, self-satisfied and pompous. That one by Kenneth Grahame” I think I get who she meant:

Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 18.21.16.png


Our sympathies to the council comms officer who had to put the news of the budget onto Twitter. Imagine having to do so knowing that the very same budget will lead to your job being even more precarious. Imagine putting a brave face on when writing it.

Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 16.52.52

In solidarity, we corrected it:

Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 17.11.59


We have been astonished by the reaction to these articles. This site has been running for just shy of a decade and has always had a decent amount of interest: Beeston is a highly-civic minded place, so this is perhaps unsurprising.

However, nothing has attracted quite so much attention as this series of articles. Our readership is in the thousands, and we have had a veritable tsunami of responses. These have mainly been from concerned locals, council workers and other people across the borough. However, we’ve also had responses from across the UK, particularly those who work in senior local authority positions. They are watching the story with interest and giving some very strong advice. To all those who have been in touch, thank you so much: we really appreciate it. If we haven’t replied to your email, our apologies. Please feel free to resend, and nudge as. The week following the initial story breaking saw so much correspondence flood in we know we probably lost a fair bit.

However, our revelations have also sparked a feeling of frustration. Readers are livid that this is happening and want it addressed forthwith. But how? We have a few suggestions that we really hope you’ll do asap

  • VOTE! Well, naturally. The next borough elections are in May 2019, however, and who knows what a state the council will be in then? So encourage you to do your democratic duty, but with the disclaimer, it might be too late by then.
  • WRITE TO YOUR MP. Assuming that is Anna Soubry, of course. Be polite, calm and factual. Ask for a response. Prepare to be disappointed: she has a habit of simply ignoring difficult questions that come in (I’m -Matt- still waiting for an explanation why she used the abuse I suffered at the hands of my mother as a fitting way of attacking me in public. It has been 9 months Anna. Get your skates on).
  • WRITE TO YOUR LOCAL COUNCILLOR. They have a duty to serve you: they do not rule you, despite what they may think. Send them an email asking for an explanation of why they think this is right, and what they are doing to address it. There are many, many issues we have uncovered lately to ask about, choose at will. You can send an email to your elected representative even if you’re not sure who they are, by simply going here: and entering your postcode. Dead easy: you can even copy in leader of the council, Cllr. Richard Jackson: Let us know how you get on.
  • GET THIS STORY TO OTHER MEDIA: Send this blog up to larger organisations than us two part-time citizen journalists: email/tweet/ FB The Nottingham Post, the Independent, The Guardian. Perhaps the most interested party will be Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs column, which focusses particularly on local gov shenanigans. Email
  • STAY TUNED! We are looking into arranging a major public event soon, to show the Councillors we demand they stop their asset-stripping, fiscally ludicrous craziness. The first manifestation of this will be a council meeting in May. More info to follow,
  • DONATE TO OUR FUND: We do this work in our spare time, which we don’t have a great deal of. As such, a few quid to keep us in coffees, cake and suchlike are most welcome and show us (and others) that there is a hunger for local investigative journalism. It’s easy to do: go to


Budget Day: The Town Hall’s Fate is to be decided.

Will the Town Hall be sacrificed to protect the fragile ego of Cllr. Richard Jackson?

Thomas and I have started getting together the next series of articles on the scandal at Broxtowe Council, largely facilitated by finding a stash of data that further show how the current ideologically-triggered dysfunction at the council is costing. And tomorrow, the impact of these stratospheric costs will hit home. It’s budget time.

At full council tomorrow the budget will be presented and voted on by our elected members. As our previous series of articles have shown, they don’t want you to know what’s going on, so information on what is in the budget are sparse when it comes to the public domain. Thankfully, exasperated staff have let us have a peek, and gave their opinions.

“Cuts, cuts, cuts” we are told by an officer “The council will simply collapse within eighteen months if they are implemented”.

8 years of austerity, which has seen councils drained of so much cash they simply collapse (see Northampton), are one factor. There simply is nothing left to cut, without mortally wounding services. What distinguishes Broxtowe is that it’s not just central cuts that are pushing the authority to the brink. This is a self-inflicted wound: the immense costs to protect the fragile ego of the council leader, Cllr. Richard Jackson. Insulating him from his own incompetence is costing the council hundreds of thousands of YOUR council tax.

The budget tomorrow will also be symbolic in that the fate of Broxtowe Borough Council totem of local democracy- Beeston Town Hall – will be decided. As fees to lawyers – over £100,000 in December alone- and to specialist employment agencies rocket, the council are faced with dipping into capital reserves; and assets need to be sold.

Council officers, who are always highly reluctant to risk their jobs by expressing a political opinion on policy, are doing so out of sheer desperation. Not just for their own careers, but for many others, and more importantly, every service they provide. “We have told them that the budget plans are unsustainable, and will cost more than they save, which will ultimately lead to collapse” the officer tells us “it’s almost like they planned to purposefully kill off the council”.

And maybe that is the plan all along. As we have reported before, Councillor Jackson tried to abolish the very same council he leads by voting FOR its abolition through his role as an elected member of Nottinghamshire County Council. That attempt failed, so perhaps he’s trying to destroy it in other ways, with services transferred to the County which would see his power – and possibly his salary – increase greatly. And if the assets the council currently own, such as the Town Hall, have to be sold off, then all the better.


It doesn’t have to be like this.


On Sunday, we will tell you how YOU can be proactive and stop this disgraceful scandal.  But for now, you can make your way down to the Town Hall tomorrow night and watch the budget. You aren’t allowed to say anything from the public gallery, but you can, by just being there, show them that they are being watched. Be at the Town Hall at 6.45pm tomorrow.

We will catch up with you with more revelations on Sunday. We will continue to keep the pressure up and the story live. This is ours which they try and take away.

If you want to support our work, drop us a few quid. It takes a lot of time and effort to conduct such journalism, so all help is welcome: