The site that he’s talking about is of course “www.Nocounciltax.com” and he even tries to convince our caller that the decision made by Wirral Council to withdraw in the Roger Hayes case was made of “someones own back” and that “he wouldn’t like to be in her shoes”

What a load of tosh! – All decisions to withdraw from Council Tax cases are made by the councils own legal advisors who are all trained solicitors or barristers retained (At great expense to you and I) by the council. If the decision was made to withdraw by the council then it was made because they knew they were on a hiding to nothing! It’s that simple.

It’s staggering the depths these “legal departments” will go to and the lies they will tell just to try and get you to pay the council tax thats keeping them in a job.

Enjoy the call!

So we are today broadcasting this very informative little film on how you should pay your council tax (that is … if you are still paying it).

Enjoy!

Take a look at this “alleged Liability Order” from Plymouth Council – really, you couldn’t make this stuff up. Unfortunately in this case Plymouth City Council have done just that!

We have known for a long time these “council Tax Hearings” are nothing more than “corporate meetings” paraded to you and I as “court Cases” – well the next time you get a summons – write to HMCS and ask them what they know about the case. The answer is … NOTHING!

That’s Odd? If these Council Tax Court Appearances were TRUE court cases then HMCS would know all about it. Instead they simply say “It’s a matter for the council” – well if thats the case then what the hell are these cases doing in a court???

Of course the reason the councils do this is obvious …

Ask yourself, if you had stopped paying council tax and they rang you up politely and asked you to go a meeting in the council offices … would you go? No and neither would the rest of us. So the councils “hire” the court which pays the magistrates to make bulk liability orders on the pretext that its a real court case.

Which it isn’t …

Which brings us onto the Liability Orders (allegedly) that these “courts” issue, these prove that these are NOT true courts and these liability orders are just made up bits of paper with no lawful meaning whatsoever.

Take a look at the image below and you will see the following major failings in this document.

1. No Royal Coat of Arms
2. No Seal of The Court (The stamp the clerk stamps the orders with)
3. No “wet ink” signature of the issuing magistrate or Clerk
4. Scribbled out / amended figures (are they making it up or what?)
5. No indication as to who the signatory is
6. No Name / Address of who the liability order is against
7. No date
8. No case number

Not only that, the document looks like it could have been created by any council employee who had been on a weeks course of Microsoft Word. To try and lay claim that this is a TRUE COURT order is laughable.

Many of us who are not paying this unlawful tax have been attempting to gain a true and original copy of a liability order issued and sealed by a court for over two years now and so far we have had NO success. We know why … it’s because the Councils DO NOT have such a document. There is NO court order. These “liability orders” are just corporate papwerwork created out of a corporate hearing and they know that when we push them into a TRUE court of law they will have to show which Judge and which Court produced the liability order (the true one) and as no court did … they will either have to admit

A) FRAUD
B) PERJURY (if they try and enter this Liability Order as a true court order)
C) ALL OF THE ABOVE!

Download a PDF copy of this document – CLICK HERE

For a more detailed expose of the fraud being visit:-

http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13425&sid=d1e918b508323832657c618e85c5f0a5&start=10#p110402

Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion, John Hurst is no free-loader. He is a highly responsible and patriotic citizen, a former police officer with an impressive record. His decision not to pay is based on thorough research indicating that councils have no legal right whatsoever to levy such a tax on its citizens. Believing this to be true, John would have therefore committed an offence by actually paying the tax, as the majority of us already have. Given that ignorance of the law is no defence, it places the overwhelming majority of hitherto respectable British citizens in an invidious situation and the courts in an even worse one.

John, a committed supporter of Lawful Rebellion, arrived at the court with his wife, along with her Mackenzie Friend. The court official took down the details but then returned some time later stating that Tina Hurst’s case was no longer listed. This was an extremely odd development, given that Tina is registered disabled with visual impairment and would have hence qualified for a Council Tax rebate, which had not been awarded and for legal aid should she decide to take the case further. It would appear that suspicions of skulduggery would not be entirely unfounded. The official was challenged over this and shortly afterwards brought out a more senior figure, a pleasant young man, who invited the little party into a private office. There he declared that on checking his information, Tina Hurst was on the list after all!

Much later, the group was invited into Court. John Hurst, representing himself, immediately questioned as to why there were only two magistrates on the bench instead of the required three. The Council`s solicitor stated that he had to agree but that this was not contentious. John immediately retorted that it was and insisted on exercising his legal right to have three magistrates present. The court officials had to concede and the group was asked to leave the Court whilst a third magistrate be found.

Amongst John Hurst’s contentions, was the fact that this court had no jurisdiction to make a firm decision on his case. Therefore, it was welcome when the council solicitor appeared, telling John that the court had decided that the matter should be passed to the Court in Llandrindod Wells for trial on Friday 5th November at ten a.m.

The group re-entered the Court shortly afterwards for the formal decision to be announced, but John consequently and successfully challenged the by now hapless and bewildered clerk of the court over a number of legal and procedural issues.

It was not all over, as John stated that he had not yet received disclosure of the Council`s documents. The Council`s solicitor conceded that they had only been posted on 29th September, two days earlier. The clerk then stated that in order to enable Counsel to examine the Hurst’s skeleton argument, the time of the coming hearing would be delayed by thirty minutes. John immediately stated that he failed to understand how this would allow Counsel to assimilate the information as it consisted of thirty pages. The clerk again seemed baffled by this, as she was unaware of this attachment. The Council`s solicitor was immediately questioned and became somewhat incoherent. He asked if John had actually sent the documents with the attachment, to the Council. John stated that he had and furthermore had a printed e-mail acknowledgement from the Council to prove it.

Hence, it was established that the Council`s solicitor must have knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose vital evidence to the Court, a criminal offence.

The Court was hastily concluded and the officials and the solicitor were assured that a formal complaints would be issued, including one to the police requesting the arrest and charge of Powys Council`s solicitor for withholding evidence from the Court, which, moreover, would have not have been discovered but for the unfortunate clerk`s statement.

It must be said that John Hurst`s performance in Court was magnificent, assured, authoritative and knowledgeable at all times, invariably leaving the court, including the magistrates, trailing along hopelessly out of their collective depth. He and his wife deserve every possible support for their courageous stand, which is an important stepping stone on the way to exposing the inefficiency, unlawful conduct and even possible corruption on the part of those responsible for administering our legal system and the behaviour of other state-funded officials, particularly in this instance, those employed by Powys Council.

This court report was originally written by journalist Robert Green.

read comments at pjc journal link below

http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/council-tax-rebellion-and-a-day-in-court/

Council Tax rebellion – John Hurst StatementPosted on October 11, 2010 by Ian Parker-Joseph

Following the court report published yesterday, John Hurst has issued the following Statement for publication:

So much for the events at Court. The significance of this case to us all is the reason why a local authority, or any other revenue gathering body, no longer has lawful authority to tax us. It is because The Crown, and all officials who act in the name of the Crown, have breached the contract with the people of these islands to rule us according to our laws and customs.

.
That contract was acknowledged in the peace treaties know as Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights. The present Queen publicly swore to uphold those laws and customs at her Coronation in 1953. In 2009 she gave Royal Assent to the unlawful pretended statute which gave effect to the Lisbon treaty and allowed foreign potentates of the European Union to issue directives and regulations which her officials then impose as if they had the authority of Parliament.

.
From that moment the UK changed from a constitutional monarchy to a tyranny, and we were subjected to the abuse of the state’s coercive force in the absence of the rule of law.
This is not the first time this has happened in history and our ancestors successfully resisted using our common law right to the protection of duress of circumstances confirmed in Chapter 61 of Magna Carta.

.
The “Skeleton Argument” that is before the Court explains what is at stake:

i. The respondent resides in a rented cottage in Powys and the Claimant has presented him with a bill for Council Tax for £900 in the name of The Queen.

ii. The Respondent has made a conditional offer to pay if the claimant can produce evidence that the claim is made lawfully. In the absence of such evidence, he is asserting that breaches of treaty obligations between The Crown and the people and the activation of the procedure specified by Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and, alternatively, the Common Law defence of duress of circumstances justify his withholding of the payment.

iii. The first matter at issue is the authority of The Queen (and Her officials) to issue demands for taxes at a time when she is under the supervision of a Barons Committee lawfully constituted under Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215. If the demand was made in the name of a Corporation and not The Queen then the Respondent has no contract with them and therefore no liability.

iv. The second matter at issue, which the Respondent alternatively and independently relies on, is the Common Law right of the subject to invoke the defence of duress of circumstances because The Queen has breached her Common Law treaty obligations with the people that were confirmed in Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights 1688 and as a consequence the Respondents life, liberties and property are threatened.

i. The respondent has been a legal researcher for the Magna Carta Society (the MCS) since 1998 and helped produce the research paper on the possibility of raising a Barons Committee in 1999.

ii. Michael Burke, also a member of the society, petitioned the Courts to uphold the Declaration and Bill of Rights in 1998 and 1999 without success. The Judgments were referred to in the research paper and were part of the material relied upon in its arguments.

iii. Members of the public were invited to send postcards to The Queen urging her not to give Royal Assent to any statute which purported to give effect to the Nice Treaty in the UK. Several hundred thousand did so.

iv. The Queen failed to respond to public petitioning and there was no evidence that the then Prime Minister intended to change his counsels.

v. Members of the society petitioned each member of the Houses of Lords and Commons not to give their support to any statute relating to the Nice Treaty.

vi. 65 Peers selected a quorum of 25 of their number to address the petitions from the MCS and members of the public. They were satisfied that the conditions required to justify the use of the procedure specified in Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 were established. Four of their number served the petition on Her Majesty on 7th February 2001.

vii. No response was made to the Barons Petition within the specified 40 days or has been to date. The conditions for Lawful Rebellion came into effect.

viii. The then Government used a purported statute (the House of Lords Act 1999) and the Rules of Parliament to deny a majority of the Hereditary Peers access to the House which prevented them exercising their Common Law right to be consulted about and vote on statutes. Officials took possession of their Letters Patent. They were replaced by hereditary Peers, many in dubious circumstances (the cash for Peerages scandal).

ix. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Nice Treaty on 26/2/2002.

x. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Lisbon Treaty on 19/06/2008. Direct rule from the European Union commenced in late 2009.

xi. Displaced hereditary Peers challenged the validity of the House of Lords Act and obtained an admission that it was invalid from a Government Minister, Baroness Ashton, on 20th September 2008. To date, no remedial action has been taken. This is described in the submission listed at Para 4. i. Above.

1. The Respondents Submissions Opposing a Liability Order.

i. I am a British subject of good character and have twice sworn the Oath of Allegiance, as a soldier and as a police officer. Both of those oaths require allegiance to the law, not an office holder, and require the individual concerned to make judgments about the lawfulness of his, or her, actions. So does the Judicial Oath.

ii. Regarding Ch. 61 of Magna Carta, I submit that a Baron’s Committee was lawfully raised, that their Petition was served on The Queen on 7th February 2001 and that the provisions of Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 apply until the Committee or a duly constituted Constitutional Convention decides otherwise. I have sworn allegiance to that Committee. In these circumstances I submit that Powys Council has no authority to issue a tax demand to me.

iii. Regarding the defence of “duress of circumstances”, I have an honestly held belief that my life, liberty and property are at risk because laws that are repugnant to the Common Law are being applied within the UK. I did not place myself voluntarily in this position. Refusing to pay taxes to The Queen, who, together with certain evil counsellors, is responsible for this situation and is in breach of the Common Law and her Coronation Oath is an act of self defence on my part. Any refusal by Crown Officials to acknowledge the restraints that they are subject to will be further evidence that my beliefs are well founded.

iv. The Judicial Studies Board document referred to at Para. 3. iv. above confirms that it is for The Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt the defence of duress does not apply.

2. Remedies Sought by the Respondent.

i. For the reasons given above I respectfully submit that no properly directed Court has authority to try me for refusing to pay Council Tax. If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to make a ruling on this I claim my right to have the issues that I have raised put before a lawfully constituted (complete with all hereditary Peers and without post 1999 Life Peers) House of Lords in order for a case to be stated. That is because the defects in the House of Lords Act 1999 noted above call into doubt the validity of the new “Supreme Court”.

ii. If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to do that I ask for these matters to be put before the Supreme Court for a case to be stated. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of that Court for the reasons given.

Respectfully submitted,

John Hurst.

As reported yesterday, the Brecon court has decided that the matter should be passed to the Court in Llandrindod Wells for for a new hearing on Friday 5th November at ten a.m, and I am sure that John would welcome support.

(note: it is not a trial, but a hearing before an administrative court which is hired for the day by the Council, including the magistrates).

The Freedom Rebels have allegedly recorded a court hearing … THIS IS IT!

According to a local Gloucester Newspaper an allegedly illegal recording of a case at Gloucester Magistrates’ Court has been posted on the internet. (oh dear!)

The video was uploaded by a group calling itself The Freedom Rebels.

It shows a hearing which the group says took place on Friday, January 29, this year.

Making a recording in court is illegal under Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and under Section nine of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Anyone breaking the law can be jailed.

A police spokeswoman said: “Gloucester CID are currently investigating the filming of this footage.

“The court service are aware and we are liaising with them.”

The video has been uploaded to a well-known video sharing website.

It shows magistrates sitting in court two in the Barbican Way complex hearing a case regarding unpaid council tax.

The Freedom Rebels group claims to work to challenge what it calls the “false authority” of the courts.

Its members also believe council tax is illegal under British common law and are campaigning to see it abolished.

Videos of other court hearings, including at Cwmbran Magistrates’ Court, have also been uploaded onto the internet.

The law states: “It is a contempt of court to use in court, or bring into court for use, any tape recorder or other instrument for recording sound, except with the leave of the court or to publish a recording of legal proceedings made by means of any such instrument, or any recording derived directly or indirectly from it, by playing it in the hearing of the public.”

For Those who haven’t seen the video as yet …

1. Where HAVE you been?
2. Click Here - http://vimeo.com/channels/freedom

Credit: http://www.freedomrebels.co.uk/magazine/read/investigation-launched-into-freedom-rebels-gloucester-court-video_807.html

One person had time to grab their camera and took this image of a brown and a green bin being emptied into the vehicle.

And residents claim the practice has now been going on in Plymouth, Devon, for six weeks.

What a waste: Council workers look on as the two bins are emptied into the back of the same lorry

One man, who did not want to be named, said residents decided to take action after they complained to the council and received no response.

He said: ‘They just come along and get both bins and put them in the same truck. We wash our bottles and tins and we want them to be recycled.

‘It’s a waste of time if they are putting them in the same truck as the unrecyclable waste.

‘We saw it happen for the first time and thought it was a one-off, but now we have seen it again and again.’

The pictures were taken as the contracted refuse workers did their round in a service lane behind residents’ houses on Wednesday morning.

Those living on the street say they all adhere to the council’s recycling policy and are upset because they want to see the recyclable material kept separate.

They claim the same thing had happened on the past three green-and-brown bin collections, despite making complaints to the Plymouth City Council.

A female resident, who also asked to remain anonymous, took pictures of the incident and described what she saw as ‘terrible’.

She said: ‘I have always washed and separated out all my recyclable waste, but I’m not going to recycle any more until I am sure that the council is recycling it properly.’

She added that the council might say it was difficult to get lorries through – but if they could get one lorry through, they could get both a waste wagon and a recycling lorry in, she argued.

Plymouth City Council said that a ‘significant proportion’ of the green bins in the service lane had been contaminated with non-recyclable waste.

Therefore, in line with council policy, they were reclassified as ‘unrecyclable’ and emptied into a ‘brown’ refuse truck, a spokesman said.

‘A significant proportion of the green bins had also been “contaminated” with non-recyclable waste, so they were emptied into the same truck,’ he said.

‘Vehicles have been blocking access for our refuse and recycling trucks and we have had problems emptying the bins in this road for a number of weeks.

‘This meant there was a considerable build-up of rubbish and we received several complaints from residents that green and brown bins were overflowing.

‘Access was still blocked on Wednesday so we sent a crew in a smaller lorry to clear the rubbish as quickly as possible.

‘We can assure residents that they can keep up their excellent recycling efforts safe in the knowledge that it is all contributing to reducing landfill and creating a cleaner environment.’

Credit: http://www.freedomrebels.co.uk/members/profile/64/blog-view/blog_734.html

That was despite repeated pledges by ministers to crack down on public sector profligacy.

And it follows yesterday’s astonishing revelation that there are 172 senior civil servants who earn over £150,000 – more than the Prime Minister.

In total, civil servants in Government departments were given bonuses worth nearly £130million – the equivalent of £2 for every man, woman and child in Britain.

A survey by the Daily Mail has found that more than half of the departments paid higher rewards to civil servants than the year before.

Bureaucrats in the Foreign Office were among the biggest beneficiaries, with an 18 per cent hike in the total value of bonuses in just one year.

Staff in the Equalities Office – the former pet department of Labour’s acting leader Harriet Harman – saw their bonus pots double in just 12 months.

The shocking examples of Whitehall excess come as a civil service union chief claimed that the pay and perks of senior mandarins were ‘modest’.

Jonathan Baume, leader of the First Division Association that represents senior staff, also made a thinly veiled attack on David Cameron, suggesting that the Prime Minister could afford a pay cut because he was a ‘millionaire’.

Mr Baume was responding to Business Secretary Vince Cable, who had urged ‘more discipline’ in public sector pay following the disclosure over civil servants’ vast pay.

The Government has Whitehall’s bonus culture in its sights as part of plans to cut Britain’s eye-watering deficit by more than £6billion.

But in an extraordinary defence, Mr Baume said: ‘These are relatively high salaries compared to the average but they are modest in most cases compared to the private sector. They are the jobs at the very top of an enormous organisation operating across the UK.’

Asked about comparisons to the Prime Minister’s salary, he said: ‘David Cameron himself is a millionaire and I’ve got absolutely no issue with that but prime ministers, even if he wasn’t, generally go on to become very rich afterwards – that’s certainly been the case of the last three, four prime ministers.’

The Mail used the Freedom of Information Act to ask all departments how much they had paid civil servants in bonuses for the past two years. Figures were released by seven ministries.

They showed that staff at the Government Equalities Office, the Department for International-Development, and the Welsh Office saw the value of their packages more than double.

At the Foreign Office the amount soared by 18 per cent. Only the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Communities and Local Government, and the Department of Health saw their bonuses fall.

The survey suggests that this tax year bonuses to civil servants will exceed the £129million paid between 2008 and 2009.

The Foreign Office paid out by far the most in bonuses with a pot of £9.1million in 2009-10, up from £7.7million the year before, a rise of 18 per cent. This works out at an average of almost £1,250 each for the 7,303 who got the bonuses.

High earners: Bureaucrats in the Foreign Office were among the most highly paid

The Equalities Office paid out £58,850, up from £28,400, a rise of 107 per cent. Of this, £19,000 was allocated for staff who have ‘excelled in a particular area of work’ – although 30 members of the discrimination law team were given £100 for the apparently everyday task of helping to process the controversial Equality Act through Parliament.

At the Welsh Office, the value of bonuses rose from £6,000 to £15,900.

The Department of Communities and Local Government paid out less than the year before, £1.1million compared to £1.2million. However, the amount staff received went up from an average of £1,911 to £2,024.

The Department for International Development showered bonuses across the ministry, even giving 13 security guards employed by private contractor ISS Pegasus £500 each.

In total DfID paid out £634,150 to senior civil servants, down from £641,510, with the largest single payment being £15,000 and the average payment £7,357.

However, for the first time the department rewarded middle-ranking civil servants with a new bonus which amounted to £742,515. In total the department paid out £1.3million – a rise of 103 per cent.

The Department for Work and Pensions paid out £21.81million, down from £23.32million the year before.

The Department of Health paid out £2,367,000 in bonuses for 1,017 staff, down from £2,605,000 the year before.

Last night the Equalities Office said its bonuses were for staff ‘receiving an achieved or excelled mark in their annual reports’. The Foreign Office said it ‘targets money at those who make the biggest contribution’ while DfID said it always took into account the difficulty of workers’ tasks when deciding payouts.

The survey does not include some of the biggest bonus-paying departments. The Ministry of Defence gave out £53million in 2008/9 and will reportedly increase that by another £6million for the year just gone.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘It is small wonder that the public finances are in such an awful mess if people were getting record bonuses despite all the things going wrong.

‘It is unbelievable that any minister could have thought it appropriate to hand out wads of cash at a time when the economy and the public finances were in a dire state.’

The PM and his new ministers have already cut their own pay by 5 per cent.

THE HOUSING FAT CATS

High earner: Former chief executive of the Anchor Trust John Belcher

More than 50 housing association ‘fat cats’ are pocketing more than the Prime Minister in pay and perks, it emerged yesterday.

A list of the top-paid executives – who are supposed to find homes for the poorest in society – was released yesterday as part of a Government transparency drive.

John Belcher, the former chief executive of the Anchor Trust, was the top paid housing boss last year, earning £391,000 – including a £111,000 bonus.

His salary rocketed by 85 per cent in five years even though he oversaw the closure of a string of care homes.

Housing associations are largely funded by taxpayers’ money.

Michael Gelling, from the Tenants’ and Residents’ Organisation of England, said it was ‘difficult to justify how money for housing benefit is going towards those enormous salaries.’

Bristol City has created the management training posts for graduates in an effort to recruit more minority employees.

As a result the council will only accept applications from ethnic minorities for the two-year placements.

But this has prompted criticism from white graduates struggling to find work.

Controversial: Bristol City Council has attracted criticism from white jobseekers who claim the management trainee posts are ‘totally racist’

One jobseeker, who did not wish to be named, described the posts as ‘totally racist’.

He said: ‘I am a tolerant white person who has lived in Bristol for 27 years.

‘I am searching for a job and stumbled across a job advertisement on Bristol City Council’s website that I see as totally racist.

‘I feel the job would be an excellent opportunity for me to make use of the skills and qualifications that I have acquired but, being white, I am excluded.

‘Equal opportunities means giving everyone an equal chance to succeed rather than discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin.’

The two jobs are described on BCC’s website as ‘open to black and minority ethnic graduates’ only, with applications closing on June 11.The job description reads: ‘We are looking for two enthusiastic graduates with a degree in any discipline to undertake a two-year management training programme at Bristol City Council.

‘You should have a strong interest in the delivery of local public services, be able to take the initiative and have the confidence to relate to people at all levels within the Council.

‘The traineeship will involve rotating placements in different services of the City Council where you will be where you will be given ‘on the job’ training and undertake projects including policy and research work.

‘You will need to be flexible and able to learn quickly in changing environments. The successful candidates will be offered a postgraduate diploma in Management Studies, a tax free training allowance and mentoring and support throughout the traineeship.’

Bristol council has 9,000 members of staff, not including teachers, of which 630, or seven per cent, are from ethnic minorities.

Because 12 per cent of Bristol residents come from minority backgrounds the council has begun trying to redress this imbalance.

Discriminatory? The job advert appeared on Bristol City Council’s website

A spokesman for the council said advertising ethnic minority-only posts was allowed under race relations legislation.

He said: ‘This traineeship was started because of the marked under-representation of ethnic minorities in our workforce.

‘The normal recruitment process was not rectifying this unacceptably low trend so there was a strong case for this small positive recruitment traineeship for two ethnic minority graduates a year.

‘We have a workforce of more than 9,000 employees, excluding school staff, so this is a small training programme.

‘Graduates from any ethnic background are open to apply for the national graduate local government programme which we recruit from every year – we have just recruited two graduates in this way.

‘We also run a successful apprenticeship programme for the under-24s – so far we have placed 62 to date. And of course there are a range of jobs advertised externally via our website, which graduates can apply for.

‘It is also worth remembering that this is a training position – at the end of the two years there is no guarantee of work and the successful candidates would have to apply for a job with the council in the usual way on the open market.’

The Race Relations Act 1976 states that if a racial group is under-represented councils can offer training to individuals from that group.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283291/The-18-000-council-job-apply-white.html#ixzz0pk8lLMOu

Human beings have been washing their hands since time began and Mobile phones have been around for nearly two generations. It is hard to think of anyone who doesn’t have one, but just in case they do still confuse you, West Sussex County Council decided to lend a helping hand.

They produced videos called ‘How to wash you hands properly” and ‘How to use a mobile phone’. Carefully going through how to make a call, send a text and save your favourite numbers, they put it up on the web last year.

They say that they ran 23 courses last year for 160 people wanting to learn how to use a basic mobile phone, and the film was made in order to promote the courses and ensure it reached more people.

But local residents who spoke to Watchdog questioned whether it really was an effective use of public money.

West Sussex County Council made the video, along with other such as ‘How to use a map and compass’ . They say that all of the films only cost a few hundred pounds each to make, and insist they are effective publicity and represent good value for money.

You can decide for yourself by looking at the film, and their full response, below.

At a time when saving money is top of the agenda across local and central government, Watchdog had a look at how West Sussex and other local councils are spending taxpayers’ money. The full report can be seen tonight at 8pm on BBC1.

West Sussex County Council told Watchdog:

‘Each film cost just £300 to make, from existing budgets. Last year we ran 23 courses for 160 people wanting to learn how to use a basic mobile phone. The film, to promote the courses, ensured we reached even more people. It was taken off when attendances were extremely high. We also run popular silver surfer courses for the many older people who also want to learn internet technology.

How to Wash your Hands’ was made at the height of the H1N1 virus as a health protection video, using special light to show that many people simply don’t do it properly.

Our in-house films are also on DVD and shown at Libraries and Help Points. The camera and editing equipment has earned more in income than it cost to buy. This is effective publicity and good value for money.’

What flipping planet do these people live on! Think about it – over a billion mobile phones sold and West Sussex County Council believe that we need a £300 video to tell us how to use one! Good God!

Nice to know that our money is being wasted in this way – thanks to BBC watchdog for alerting us on this one!

Yes! www.NoCouncilTax.comThe site that has become the bane of every council in the land is back!

We’re now even bigger, brighter and better than before with a completely new look and a much faster server to take care of all the traffic! (much of which was councils themselves wondering how the hell they were going to try and cover up what we were exposing)

What’s even more encouraging is that we now have not 1 but THREE, yes 3 whistleblowers working inside corrupt county councils who are telling us and showing us exactly whats going on.

These are brave people and its becoming clear to us the councils treat their employees the same way the treat everyone else … like dirt! Now some of them are realising that they are not alone, that they like us have to care for their families and live in the community and that what the councils are doing in forcing people to pay this Council Tax unlawfully is wrong. We applaud those who have come forward and actively encourage many more of you to tell us your stories. We guarantee your anonymity!

So bookmark the site, stand back, and enjoy the show!

Regards; Admin