Received from East Ayrshire Council by e-mail on the 23rd. October 2002

Dear Mr McKie

RE WATERSIDE FARM, GALSTON

Thank you for your further letter of 18 October 2002 regarding the above.

I acknowledge receipt of the various enclosures and confirm that I have passed these to the Director of Community Services and to the Head of Administrative and Legal Services for their consideration as part of their ongoing monitoring of the situation in respect of these premises. I can also confirm that, within the Department of Community Services, Trading Standards officers are in the process of thoroughly reviewing these documents and will thereafter take any appropriate action which may be required.

Further, I note your comments in the third paragraph of your letter and can only state that your assertion, that you have not been advised by senior Council officers that they are happy to receive any relevant information concerning the activities of Mr Hamilton, does not accord with information available to me. Over and above the content of correspondence with other interested parties, I am specifically aware of , and had in mind, an email sent to yourself by John Crawford, Head of Protective Services, which include both Trading Standards and Environmental Health, on 27 August in which he stated "I will also be happy to have the Trading Standards Service investigate any complaints concerning the sale of pups on these premises" and provided you with their contact telephone number. Similarly, in his further email to you of 2 September Mr Crawford followed up a specific complaint by seeking from you contact details of a vet in Greenock who may have been in a position to provide the Council with further relevant information.

The officers of the Council directly involved in this matter have dealt, and will continue to deal, with all matters brought to their attention, from whatever source, in a wholly responsible and professional manner.

I would also confirm that Drybridge does not lie within the boundaries of East Ayrshire and accordingly I am unable to comment on the positioning of the election campaign posters to which you refer.

Again, I would reiterate that the Council remains happy to receive any relevant information concerning Mr Hamilton's activities and will pursue as fully and properly as it can, any complaints and concerns received which fall within its powers of investigation.

In that regard, it would be helpful if any further correspondence, with evidence of concerns, could be sent direct to William Stafford, Director of Community Services, at Council Headquarters.

Yours sincerely

David Montgomery
CHIEF EXECUTIVE

C.C. William Stafford , Director of Community Services
David Mitchell, Head of Legal and Administration

Reply to the above e-mail sent by post on 26th. October 2002 by Ken McKie, WAG secretary.

Dear Mr Montgomery,

Waterside Farm, Galston: Council Meeting 24 October 2002

In response to your letter regarding Waterside Farm and comments made at the above meeting we would like to make the following points

1. In response to your letter regarding Waterside Farm and comments made at the above meeting we would like to make the following points
2. The national press informed the Council and other individuals of the numerous malpractices carried out by the applicant Mr Hamilton.
3. The Council were informed of innumerable problems over the lack of control of disease at the above premises, by the applicant Mr Hamilton, whilst the property is located in very close proximity to a secondary school.
4. The reporting veterinary surgeon intimated such problems and the lack of proper records being kept by Mr Hamilton.
5. Members of the public have made contact with Trading Standards claim to have been told that there was nothing illegal in the activities being carried out by the applicant, Mr Hamilton. Although we have no first hand knowledge of these, we have statements to this effect by said members of the public.
6. To Date East Ayrshire Council has failed to investigate any of the above points comprehensively or competently.

We have to comment, in relation to the points above, that East Ayrshire Council and their staff have appeared to "buried their heads in the sand" over this. With a little effort we have uncovered vast amount of evidence involving the malpractices as carried out by Mr Hamilton yet the Council appear not have been able to do so- why?

We received a correspondence stating that one specific complaint related to the jurisdiction of North Ayrshire jurisdiction. By means of this submission, what we were intimating to you was the character of the applicant in order to prove that he is an unfit person. We were not suggesting that you should bring charges; this is the role of the police and Procurator Fiscal's Service, all of whom have been past relevant information by us.

The whole situation has been further exacerbated by the action whereby the public were to be barred from being present at the Council meeting on 24 October, due to a limitation of space. At this time it was also stated that we had not intimated to the council that we would be attending.

We find that statement incomprehensible, given that the Council had taken it upon themselves to ensure that there were four police officers and one sergeant; in attendance, presumably for fear of public disorder and safety. It was only by the good grace of Councillor Boyd that these people were admitted. This was made worse by the fact you by the fact that space was provided for a council employee to be seated in the 'press area' and not amongst council staff.

We further note that a member of the council staff also took up one seat in the room, no doubt endeavouring to gauge our response and possible action. This is does not seem like the action of an authority that is seeking openness and transparency, nor democratic government- rather that it is more the action of an authority that is trying to silence unwelcome public opinion!

We are also appalled that councillors have been instructed to follow your instructions when receiving intimation from our supporters and ourselves. We were under the impression that the Councillor officials were accountable to the Councillors - elected members, rather than the 'employee' telling the employers their duty.

By means of this correspondence, we now give fair notice to you that when the Licensing Meeting takes place will be attended by a fair number of people. This offers sufficient time for the Council to make suitable arrangement. It was also interesting to note that on 24 October there was insufficient seating available for the Councillors, themselves, to be seated.

We would now direct your attention to statements made at the meeting by Mr Mitchell. He clearly stated that no new evidence had been received; yet you acknowledge receipt of all our correspondence. In addition, all councillors have been provided with a full update of the potential charges, against Mr Hamilton, (for which we have proof of posting) so how can this statement be correct?

We would now turn ourselves to the proceedings themselves, which were farcical. First we would point out that a number of our members recorded the count of the open vote, none of whom could reconcile with final totals as declared. Was this because some of the more shy, retiring members of the Council did not make their statements audibly. In any event, we await sight of the detailed meeting minutes, in due course.

We also wish to refer to the instance of the vote from Councillor Walsh. On three separate occasions when asked his vote, Councillor Walsh stated "FOR". On a fourth occasions, Mr Boyd then challenged Councillor Walsh on his vote, at which point he then changed his vote to "AGAINST" From our knowledge of arithmetical counting, this would mean that Councillor Walsh voted three times for and once against!

We can provide more than sufficient witnesses to substantiate this account, and indeed members of the Council at that end of the room reacted with amazement and incredulity at this outcome. We must point out that if this democracy at work then let it end - this was an out and out disgrace!

Finally, we would draw your attention to the blatant censorship that is being shown by your Council. Despite their having been advised that we did not involve ourselves in the placing of posters on road signs, we were still asked to remove them by the Council - which we did willingly.

Not withstanding the above, we daily see other signs, posters, banners and advertisements being displayed illegally. These signs etc. are in place over several weeks. How can this be as they all contain telephone numbers through which you can make contact. We know there is no need for us to be specific as a statement was made that your council officials pass these signs on a daily basis.. We have also learned of other such posters of ours having been displayed elsewhere, again without our blessing, and that Council have not overreacted like yours. Surely this is stifling the freedom of speech?

We look forward to hearing your reply together with a copy of your standing orders, health and safety details and other information of risk assessment carried out by the council with regard to the prevention of public from their democratic right to observe the Council at work - a sight that was not pleasant to the uninitiated, as we have observed children at nursery school conduct themselves with more decorum.

We are sorry that the tone of this letter is so critical, but this how the actions of East Ayrshire Council, its officers and procedures are perceived.

Yours sincerely

Kenneth McKie
On behalf of the Waterside Action Group