Many businesses have now probably paid the BID levy to the Council, under protest. Others have probably paid after receiving a summons, to avoid any chance of their credit reputation being compromised.

Yet others, like us, have gone to Court, to "show cause" why the bill should not be paid. If you are one of these, you will have discovered it is not a 'real' court, but a travesty of legal process. It is not there to find the truth and make judgement. It is simply a 'front', a means of 'rubber stamping' this iniquitous and illegal tax, sullying the good name of British justice.

Our experience, was yours similar? The summons said 1:30 PM, we four business owners arrived early, checking the notice board to find which Court, but there was no list. We found that the "hearing" was on level 5, there was a table with some ladies and forms. Some time after giving our names and reasons for disputing the bill we realised they had nothing to do with the Court. Nearby was a man, listening in. We assumed, from his dress, that he was a court official.

They were Council staff, trying to persuade us to pay, trying to refuse us entry to the Court. When we demanded to see the Magistrates, they directed us to another floor. It was 4:PM before a Court became available, obviously a place had not been booked for us, they assumed we would give in.

Once in the Court, the fun started. The man listening in earlier turned out to be the Council's solicitor. I asked the tribunal of Magistrates, is it legal for the 'prosecution' to set out a table outside the cortrooms, then try to persuade us to give in, without going into court? After a discussion wirh the Court Clerk, we were told 'it is customary'. We were not informed as to the legality of this practice. In a criminal court, if anyone similarly intercepted the defendants, interviewing them with the prosecution lawer listening, the case would be dismissed on the spot.

We gave some of the reasons why we should not pay the levy. We were told that the fact that no services had been delivered was between us, the Council and Coventry Best for Business. Not a matter for the Court, they were there only to make liability orders. This reminds me of the terms of reference of the Spanish Inquisition, (explanation at the end).

The Council's solicitor handed a piece of paper to the Court Clerk, he read it out to us. Only six possible "defences" were allowed. Four of these were nonsense, something like "it is not my bill" or "I have already paid" etc. The other two were "the ballot was not correctly carried out" and "the ballot result was not published".

Obviously I pointed out that these two were our case, under their restricted terms, for challenging the bill. No proper ballot, under the 2004 regulations, had taken place, only 833 businesses took part. About 2,500 businesses were billed for the Coventry BID, the balance of 1,667, including us, did no receive ballot forms, so were denied a vote.

The result of the faulty ballot was not published, so we were obviously not in a position to challenge it, within the regulation 28 days. The Council's solicitor said the ballot was properly carried out, obviously not true, but his statement, despite all evidence to the contrary, satisfied the Court. He further stated that an appeal was lodged shortly after the so-called ballot, but was rejected by the Secretary of State.

He also said the result was published, I asked 'how'. He said "a notice was put up in the Council House, one in the Central Library and one on the Council's Web site". I pointed out that putting up notices only within Council property was not "publishing", by any defintion of the word. This got the Magistrate's attention and they retired to discuss it.

They returned to say our position had been rejected and we have now received liability orders. We all felt as though we had been mugged.

Today, the 20th of February 2009, a number of businesses were in Court again. The result was the same, although, as the media were present, they allowed some leeway and a lot of discussion without resorting to 'comtempt of Court' threats. The Clerk of Court did answer some questions, a small improvement over the last time.

When handling Rates cases, Magistrates Courts are bound by regulations from central government. These regulations prevent Magistates from making decisions based on common law or the merits of a particular case. In effect they are forced to function within a similar framework to the medieval religious courts of the Inquisition.

One of these Regulations says: "If the court is satisfied that the bill is payable and has not been paid, a liability order SHALL be made." To the original sum shall be added costs claimed by the Council. A liability order enables the Council to use hired private bailiffs, closure orders and other means of extortion.

Council Bailiffs are private firms of 'heavies', in business for just that purpose. They are generally threatening, using 'bully boy' tactics, especially when victims are alone and/or female. They bear no relationship to County Court Bailiffs, who are trained professionals, usually showing courtesy and a willingness to help or offer advice in cases of hardship.

Magistrates claim that they are not able to decide whether or not a bill is justified. They can not decide on the merits of a case, so the fact that services charged for are not delivered is outside their terms of reference. They are merely a 'rubber stamping' facility for councils, not a true Court of law.

The matter of the £92 Council "Expenses" charge was raised in Court, I asked that this should be cancelled, as the Council's case was morally indefensible. The Council refused, claiming that this charge is to cover the expenses involved in sending Council officers to Court to prosecute victims or take their money.

This is NOT TRUE ! All Council officers, including their solicitor, are on a wage. Paid by us citizens out of Coucil Tax and Business Rates. There is no cost to the Council in asking officers to walk the short distance from the Council House to the Court, during their normal (short) working hours. No need for an afternoon out on expenses, the two buildings are in sight of one another.

The Magistrates refused to cancel the charge, they said it would not be fair to those who had already paid it. But it would have been simple to have re-imbursed those victims. It was very obvious that the Magistrates knew they were enforcing a completely indefensible charge but, like Pontious Pilate, they washed their hands of it. The Court Clerk then said they were retiring and they quickly escaped from the Courtroom.

Where do all the hundreds or thousands of £92 "expenses" charges go? Do they fund a Christmas booze up for officers and councillors or are they siphoned off for other unspecified purposes?

Years ago I stood for election and became a Councillor, which took up 16 years of my life. One of many things that pushed me into to doing this was just such an expenses scam. A battle I won convincingly, and many more, can this one be won? It won't be won unless we fight to its conclusion, using all tools available to us. Hopefully this site can be one of those tools.

As for Council officers in general. Our experience in completely re-organising an entire Council showed that it ran much better without most of them. As did the National Health Service before it became eighty percent managers. Costs were much lower, the system far more efficient, when workers heavily outnumbered pen-pushers instead of vice versa. As for our local Councillors, who claim to represent us, where are they when we need their support outside of election times?

We will certainly all be better off without the office desk jockeys of the BID.

Definition of work: Using physical or mental effort. To make or do something useful.

Businesses in Coventry, us included, received an unwelcome surprise in January 2008. Out of the blue an 'Invoice' from Coventry Council's Business Rates Department for yet more money. With a "warning" on the back, in the confrontational, threatening terms characteristic of 'modern' local government.

The sum concerned was 159 days worth of an expected annual payment to fund a private company "Coventry Best for Business" A.K.A. CBfB or CB4B. Despite their rather childish name, this company claims to be just what we all need. A means of promoting business in Coventry and improving the city's image.

They claim to do this by providing us with security cameras plus broadband and driving around in yellow cars. That is the gist of the company flyer included with the demand.

The problem is that most of us did not ask this company to muscle in on our territory and provide us with "protection". Most of us that need them already have cameras and broadband. Coventry Best for Business' "offering" is not up to current industry standards and still does not exist.

Many, probably most, companies were not meaningfully consulted by "Coventry Best for Business", we certainly did not vote for them. Despite government rules concerning Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), no real ballot was carried out.

The rules are that to start a 'BID', over 50% by number and over 50% by rateable value of businesses must be in favour. According to the Council's own figures, 33.6% of businesses voted and 54% of those were in favour.

That is under 18% of businesses in favour of a 'Coventry BID', a long way short of a majority. There is no evidence that those businesses were consulted and informed of costs involved before being asked to decide. In reality the real percentage of Coventry businesses in favour is less than 6%. Around two thirds of Coventry businesses were not included in the so-called ballot. So the Council & Coventry Best for Business are presumably not aware of their existence or consider them irrelevant.

If you are affected by this issue, please let me know by E-Mail. I can then let everyone know of developments and help co-ordinate a response. There are still legal remedies that can be explored. Fragmented effort is unlikely to be as effective as a joint campaign, there is strength in numbers.

Our E-Mail address for this issue is: info@coventrybid.com or info@alphaentek.com.

If you are a member of The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), they are on our side and will welcome a letter or E-Mail etc. It is also worth contacting your M.P., Robert Ainsworth, Geoffrey Robinson or Jim Cunningham. They are here to represent us and agree that the Council has behaved badly on this issue. More letters or E-Mails to them will strengthen their hand. Mr. Robinson has raised the matter at length, in Parliament and on TV.

Regards, Ron Lebar. Alpha Entek.

P.S. Other businesses are tackling this problem in their own way. Some have taken Legal Counsel's advice on this matter. I am NOT trying to take credit for their work and expenditure.

My intention is to help everyone, including ourselves, by encouraging all concerned to get together and combat this problem. Also by providing this Web site as a means to an end. Fragmented effort is never as good as a co-ordinated approach.

The best way our City Council can help businesses and tempt more to come here is to reduce the Business rate. Also clean the public streets around our business estates. Not demand a substantial increase in costs. We get little for the money demanded as it is. Those of us on private industrial estates or business parks get even less. In our street alone, at least two companies have been forced to close by the Coventry BID charge.

The Council does not collect our rubbish, unless we pay them an additional premium to do so. They do not provide business waste recycling facilities. Private contractors provide far better service and value.

They do not clean our private streets, quite the opposite. Rubbish from the infrequently swept public streets blows in, messing up our estates & causing us additional clean up costs.

Police, paid for out of the rates, do not patrol business estates, they are not keen to even respond to alarms. Making the conditions for them doing so ever more onerous and impractical.

The Fire Brigade is possibly the only genuinely essential service paid for out of non-residential rates.

Who benefits from the Coventry City wide 'BID'? The Council obviously do, it gives them the right to extort more money from us and more power over us, more chances to use their hired thugs, sorry bailiffs. CB4B are of course the main beneficiary, it seems they have 2.5 million a year of our money to play with, to lease yellow cars to run around in.

I do not think this issue is worth putting anyone else's livelihood at risk for. Simply refusing to pay will not make the issue go away, it needs to be fought, using every legal tactic available to us. Unfortunately I discovered that European Human Rights legislation may not be included in our potential armoury, although we too have rights.

As the BID levy is collected by the Local Tax department of the Council it is seen as a tax. The E.U. will not interfere in a Sovereign State's tax affairs, so the defective legislation is clever, possibly accidentally, in this respect. I am not necessarily against the idea, in principle, of some form of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs). It is an idea, imported from America, that has 'supposedly' worked elsewhere. What is wrong with the British model is its compulsory nature, together with the use of Business Rates Departments for enforcement. These parts should be retrospectively written out of legislation.

What we are especially against is the way this particular BID has been foisted on us. Without genuine consultation, without any prior notice of costs involved and without taking our views into consideration. Without asking us if we want it and are willing to pay for it.

If such a scheme is to be acceptable it must fulfill the 'job description' and formula set out by government. This one does not fit the criteria, in my opinion Coventry Best for Business does not inspire confidence. They should put their house in order and go back to the 'drawing board'. We should ask ourselves a question, if we need broadband for business purposes, would we want it from a company with their demonstrated level of competence in this area?

Society has always been replete with opportunists looking for a gravy train to board. For me to change my opinion of them, Coventry Best for Business need to convince me, and everyone else, that they really do want to consult with us. Not just send out slick glossy advertising that will go straight into the nearest bin.

Finally (for the moment): If despite this experience, a Coventry BID is finally agreed by a genuine majority, bills should be courteous & directly from the company concerned. Not from the innately nasty Rates Department, with their excessive undemocratic power and crude bully boy tactics.

The issue of whether council bailiffs should continue to exist, in this 'enlightened' century, is an issue to be resolved in another place, at another time.

They claim a speed of 8MB per second, check for yourself, if you still have their flyer. Our optical fibre broadband, the fastest public service currently available, is correctly claimed by Virgin Media to be up to 50 Mb per second for downloads.

This may not seem significant to those not familiar with computer jargon, nevertheless it means a great deal. MB versus Mb in digital parlace, a capital 'B' is short for 'Byte', an 8 bit number that can have any value from zero to 255. A lower case 'b' is short for bit, the smallest unit in binary arithmetic, this can have a value of zero or one.

So in binary arithmetic a 'B' has 128 times the range of values of a 'b'. 8 MB per second is equal to 80 Mb per second, including serial data formatting bits. No current public land line service can yet achieve this speed, certainly no wireless link can manage it, even less so with cameras sharing the bandwidth.

If the small print is read, the proposed, currently 'pie in the sky', download speed is really only "up to 6 Mb/sec" for downloads, slower than BT's up to 8 Mb/sec for downloads.

Coventry M.P. Geoffrey Robinson organised a petition against the B.I.D. It called for the ballot to be re-taken fairly and for all work on the BID to stop until this took place

As the faulty ballot took place two years ago, this course of action is no longer viable. We now need to concentrate, as Mr. Robinson has said, on getting rid of Coventry Best for Business' Chief Executive and holding an interim re-ballot.

My E-Mail address for this issue is: info@coventrybid.com

Regards, Ron Lebar. Alpha Entek.

We are taking various steps to facilitate a resolution of this problem. Helping to spread the word of Geoffrey Robinson's early petition and this professionally protected Web site are a couple. On behalf of our estate, we have also claimed a refund of the first instalment of the BID levy, which covers the period from 25-10-2007 to 31-3-2008. CB4B has rejected all such approaches, presumably feeling themselves invulnerable.

As a member I have promoted our case with the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB. They originally held a 'neutral' position, as a few of their members may conceivably have been in favour of a BID. In response the local Regional Organiser has applied pressure.

As a result, the FSB has come out solidly against the principle of Business Improvement Districts and has issued a press release to that effect. They feel, as we do that it is unfair for businesses to be forced to pay for 'services' that are not being delivered. They are calling for the Coventry BID scheme to be wound up, which of course is what we want.

So now the country's most effective lobbying organisation organisation for SMEs has taken up our cause. They are also researching the local BID's setup, against the National BID guidelines. In particular the point I made frequently, as has Mr. Robinson M.P., that a majority of businesses are not included, yet are in the same 'geographic area'. Also that the flat rate portion of the charge is unfair to companies on smaller sites.

Another factor that needs to be addressed is that 1.5 percent of rateable value, with a ceiling of £25,000 is a heavy imposition on companies with large sites. At least one is succeeding against the odds, actually exporting vehicle components in a fiercely competitive market, dominated by countries with low labour costs. The only way to do this is to cut profit margins 'to the bone'. An extra five figure tax burden may be enough to force them out of Coventry, or even out of this country.

It seems that a good way forward is for individual businesses to make a 'Small Claims Court' claim against CB4B for breach of contract. In my opinion their claim to provide us with services is legally a contract, in writing, re-inforced by their forcing us to pay. The fact that most of us do not want or need those services has no effect on the definite nature of this contract. As they are obviously not competent to provide such services, they have broken the contract that they imposed.

Coventry Best for Business are using a London legal firm to represent them in Court, not even local Coventry lawyers. This firm has replied to the Court action with an amazing claim that, we can't win an action for 'breach of contract', because we "DO NOT HAVE A CONTRACT" with Coventry Best for Business. They quote a 2003 statute in support of this.

So in effect their legal team is claiming that, despite taking our money by force, Coventry Best for Business has no obligation to provide us with anything in return. Because they have not given us a contract !!

Despite their arrogance they are apparently sending a barrister from London, rather 'overkill for a case we "can't win". Barristers are highly paid and usually speak to cases in higher Courts. There has to be a reason why they are doing this, are they simply trying to frighten us out of proceeding?

Link to "Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Facts Sheet". Check out paragraphs 6 & 8 in 'Key Facts'.
As I understand common British law, taking money for a promise to supply goods or services forms an implicit contract.
Link to Wikipedia article on Common Contract Law. Check out the 4th & 7th lines.

British Common Law is established by our Courts, based on judicial opinions and precedents, not by Government. Any statute enacted must comply with the Law. A statute can be repealed, but as far as I am aware no British Government can repeal common law. This is part of the framework of our democracy, based originally on Christian values, and fairness. It is regularly updated to reflect modern thinking whilst retaining those basic principles. Even the current Government, with its emphasis on new statutes, has left established law largely intact.

Link to a site covering British Contract Law. "A Contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties, that is enforceable in a Court of Law. Contract law is based on the Latin 'pacta sunt servanda' which translates literally as 'agreements are to be kept'. Breach of contract is recognised by the Law, which provides specific remedies." Click here and scroll some way down, to 'Readings' for a more complete version of this principle.

The suggestion, by their lawyers, that Coventry Best for Business can use a statute to take our money by force and not supply promised services in return is in direct contravention of the principle of 'pacta sunt servanda'.

At a meeting, called by Geofrey Robinson, with the FSB plus several business representatives, he proposed a variant on the Small Claims Court approach, a joint Court case against 'Coventry Best for Business' for 'breach of contract'. This is an approach I had considered, which will require a higher level Court, involving a greater cost, which can be shared between all those willing to take part. Such 'class actions' have been successful in the recent past, a 'fighting fund' can be set up to cover the costs involved.

I would suggest that if we take this approach, we need an organisation. Formed to support all Coventry businesses with an interest in this matter, all being equal members. Such an organisation may have a continuing purpose beyond this one issue. The Federation of Small Businesses, the number one business support group, has said that it is against the principle of Business Improvement Districts. So we are grateful for their very welcome support.

BBC Radio, Coventry and Warwickshire broadcast a series of morning interviews, on the subject of the Coventry BID, on Wednesday the 11th of February. Liz Kershaw spoke to a number of business representatives, myself included. Afterwards she interviewed CB4B's Chief Executive, in my opinion he did not come over well, especially when answering questions.

For example, when asked what services had been provided he replied that they were being "rolled out". One definition of 'roll', found on the Web, is 'commit a robbery by force', similar to 'mugging', so perhaps this is appropriate.

Answers seemed to me somewhat 'vague' regarding how much of our money had been spent and on what. I did understand him to say that their staff was the equivalent of four full time posts with a projected BID income of £2.5 million per year, yes two and a half million. With 2,500 businesses, that averages at £1,000 each. So if what I heard is true, that is what CB4B is costing us every year, for four full time posts and no useful services.

Regards, Ron Lebar. Alpha Entek.

To:
Finance and Legal Services
Local Taxation Division
Council House
Coventry. CV1 5RR

We the listed member businesses of the Estate Business Association hereby claim a refund of the Business Improvement District Rates levy for the period from 25-10-2007 to 31-03-2008 (159 days).

The claimed refund for each business is calculated as follows:
(£200.00 plus 1.5 percent of Rateable Value) X 159/366.

The grounds for this claim are as follows:

That the services invoiced for have not been provided for the period concerned, specifically:

(1) Surveilance cameras have not been installed and no survey has been carried out regarding such provision.

(2) Broadband has not been made available and in fact the specified broadband service does not currently exist.

(3) Routine patrols of the estate by CB4B vehicles have not been carried out. Security tapes from the Estate's private surveilance camera system show no evidence that such vehicles came to the estate during the period.

(4) No other services have been proffered or supplied.

Please refund the claimed amounts to the relevant Business rates accounts, forthwith.

Signed: ...

Copy to Coventry Best for Business.

Coventry Best for Business' May newsletter: The Board of Directors decided to delay issuing levy invoices for the 2008 – 2009 financial year, because 'not all the services' were in place.

This delay was initially for 3 months until July. The said 'services' are still not in place and the invoices were eventually issued in November. Still no service though.

So why were the disputed January invoice issued, as the 'services' were most definitely not in place then? Why were businesses taken to Court for not paying for those non-existent services? Why were the second year's invoices issued, again followed by prosecutions, when the services still do not exist, and won't for probably another year, if ever? Why is this obviously incompetent company still supported by the Council, who take a lot of our money and claim to support and protect US?

Assuming it was to raise money to tide them over until they got going, as stated in Court, by the Council's Solicitor. The 2004 Regulations specifically state that the Council must satisfy themselves that the company chosen has the necessary financial resources, to provide the services claimed for the BID. Have they done this, it certainly does not look like it?

The Council is custodian of public money, responsible for ensuring its safety and proper use. No private company can justify charging its potential customers, willing or otherwise, for a product it has not yet produced and does not have the resouces to produce. It is their responsibilty alone to have or obtain the required funding to set up their business.

In the same newsletter and other documents "Coventry Best for Business" state that the Council's optical WAN (Wide Area Network) is a joint venture. Part funded by the BID company. The WAN is a Council project, connecting their various premises , offices, schools, libraries etc.

It does not have anything to do with businesses, apart from those contracted to do the work. This use of BID money, to subsidise the Council's project, is mis-appropriation of our funds. Using money taken from one third of Coventry's businesses to bolster the general Council Tax fund.

The proposed, currently non-existent, broadband is merely a radio (wireless) link into the proposed WAN

Similar mis-appropriation occurred with the Godiva Festival. Diverting something like £150,000 from the BID fund to help pay for established entertainment that has nothing to do with business or its promotion. The Council has clearly broken the law on this, the BID Regulations state categorically that money must only be used for new services and NOT to supplement the Rates fund.

Cameras: The BID surveilance camera system can not be commisioned until the wireless broadband is in place. This in turn can not be implemented until the Council's WAN is completed. According to Council literature, this is schduled for the end of this year, 2009. So the cameras can not come before then. The BID company have admitted that even this timescale is unlikely to be achieved.

Broadband: The proposed "free" wireless broadband is specified as being "wires only", no security will be provided. A radio link is by its nature open to all, if security codes are not included. So anyone with a portable computer, perhaps in a parked car, will be able to intercept business communications and use the broadband themselves. So even if it existed, Coventry Best for Businesses' broadband is not fit for its intended purpose.

Those of us who use wireless links to our networks know that encryption is needed within the link, to prevent eavesdropping and taking over of the network. This is not provided here, it may be claimed that businesses can protect themselves by encrypting their uplink, not so. This will simply result in encrypted E-Mails, data etc. being sent over the network. Unreadable by anyone without the same software and key.

It is obviously not practical for every business to ensure that every-one they send E-Mails to has the same encryption software and key that they are using. We live in the real world, not the fictional one of James Bond.

In addition, the proposed broadband will be connected to the Council's LAN. So Coucil officers will be able to intercept business communications. Our government is on record as being strongly in favour of this, for "national security" reasons.

Most councils resort to court orders to gain access to private or business E-Mails. This Council will not need court orders. Most council interceptions are not conducted for 'national security' reasons. It is simple spying, to try to catch fly-tippers and combat perceived rates fraud etc. Paranoia rules.

A Free Ride: In the explanatory literature for the BID the principle of 'fairness' is covered. No business, within the geographic area of a BID, should benefit from the advantages of the BID, without paying for those advantages. Succinctly put as 'no-one should get a free ride at others expense'.

So all must pay for the BID, whether they voted for or against it. The democratic principle of fairness, the rule of majority.

Very high minded, but: The companies chosen to be in the BID are not in a defined geographic area. They are in 84 business estates scattered around Coventry. The total of businesses in the 'geographic area' we call Coventry totals some 7,900.

Assume, by some miracle, Coventry does become "the place to do business" as mentioned in the BID's literature. All of these businesses will benefit from any improvement in trade and the business environment.

But only 2,500, mostly smal, businesses will be paying for it. The majority will be getting a "free ride", paid for by those least able to shoulder the burden.

Is this the democratic principle at work?

During the Roman Catholic Inquisition, the terms of reference for a 'Religious Court' hearing were strangely familiar.

When a poor unfortunate was denounced, usually out of jealous spite, the die was cast. They were brought before the Court, to confess their guilt. They would be told, "you can not have defence witnesses and you can not defend yourself. You are guilty and we are here only to pronounce judgement".

"If you confess, we will be merciful and will kill you quickly. If you refuse you will be tortured until you do confess. Then you will be killed, painfully."

At a liability hearing, the victim is told "we are not here to decide if you are guilty of non payment" you are guilty or you would not be here. We are only here to confirm a Liability Order. If you pay now, bailiffs will not be sent, otherwise they will."

Magistrates Courts were established in the days of robber barons, the people who became the Aristocracy, to give these powerful men an air of legitimacy. In situations like this they betray those origins, Councils and QUANGOs have replaced the old robber barons.

Magistrates are chosen from the ranks of ordinary people, are often well meaning, usually voluntary and generally do a good job. They may even have sympathy with the victims, as it seemed in our case. However they are, as in days of old, subservient to their masters and must toe the line. If they just once dispenced real justice, setting a precedent, the floodgates would be opened. The Council would have to give all BID estate businesses their money back., bringing the gravy train to a grinding halt

The only way out now is to refer this to a higher Court, as the lead Magistrate hinted during his summation. This avenue will be explored shortly, like you all, we have to fit in with earning a living. It is heartbreaking to be forced to give hard earned income to legalised scroungers, who have given nothing useful in return.

Ron Lebar.

A "ballot" is held, on a scheme to make money at people's expense, without allowing most of those eligible to take part.

The result is "published" by putting up notices, only in the ballot holder's own property.

After an appeal against the result, a "public enquiry" is held, without inviting the public concerned to take part. The appeal is rejected.

When people object, payment is enforced, through a low level court, allowing no effective means of defence.

Victims are threatened, "pay up or get a visit from our hired private enforcers, who will steal your property".

Sounds like a certain southern part of Africa or a Third World 'banana republic'.

Welcome to 21st Century Britain !!

Ron Lebar.

We have heard frequently that the City Centre BID was an unqualified success and fully supported. We were told that the City Council and CV One (the company behind both BIDs) knew better than us just how good a BID is. At least fas far as the retail sector is concerned. This seemed to be re-inforced by the centre BID being voted in, for a second five year term, by an "overwhelming majority".

Now the Coventry Telegraph has uncovered some of the truth. Only 254 votes were cast, out of 672 potential voters, 224 were in favour, one third of the total. Many of the rest now face visits from bailiffs, hardly an overwhelming success story. More a case of big stores, who can afford the BID levy, agreeing to the bullying of smaller rivals.

So the City Centre BID is fragmented, with those not in favour threatened, with theft of property by bailiffs and closure actions.

This is how the City Council "promotes" business in Coventry !!

Now we know one reason for many empty units in the City Centre. Including one shop that had survived since 1890 !!

Ron Lebar.

The Council have passed a 3.8 percent increase in Council Tax & Business Rates have increased substantially this year. At the same time they are making massive cuts in services, especially for the most needy. These are always an easy target, along with local libraries etc., for the right wing.

They claim that the recession is to blame. What a load of what the Americans call 'hogwash'. The credit crunch and the recession have forced down prices. Many companies are forced to offer deals, in order to sell their goods and services. It is now possible to save a lot of money, on a wide range of such materials and services.

The Council has a duty to make the best use of the money they extort, sorry 'demand', from us. It is their responsibility to spend our money wisely, to the best effect. To take advantage of prevailing conditions, to get the best possible deal for Coventry's citizens.

If the current Council can't do this, they are not fit for purpose !!

If they can't balance the books when costs are now lower, this can only be due to profligate spending of our money, since taking control.

Recent news of a multi thousand million pound re-development of the City Centre is most inappropriate during a recession. It seems like a deal to make a lot of money for developers, at the expense of local tax-payers, rate-payers and small traders. What is needed is a scheme to fill the empty units, not one to demolish a perfectly good shopping centre and start again.

The Centre has suffered years of mess and disruption from the incomplete makeover already started. Now they are going to wreck it all again, to build expensive white elephants that will, in all probability, one day be demolished in turn, to avoid empty property rates. It will obviously benefit a few large construction firms, but not our historic City. They will complete the job the Luftwaffe started in 1940.

Ron Lebar.