Media reports from Zimbabwe, to the effect that he is running a rigged election in that country, are false as the person purporting to be Mugabe is clearly a look-alike while the real Mr Mugabe is operating behind the scenes here in our town.

The way the meeting was manipulated from the very start to ensure that Mrs Traves took the chair was totally unacceptable.

The fact that an alternative proposal penned by a very brave David Lawrence was not even considered was surely a violation of normal practice.

Also my wife and I, who had voted against the proposal, were at first stated to be the only two people (though were not named) who had opposed the motion, which in fact was not the case. Neither was there any request for abstentions.
I am also concerned no alternative proposals were considered and I fear this may lead ELDC to believe Horncastle will only accept the proposition voted on.

If this is the case then ELDC may simply go their own way either by demolishing the building and using the land for other purposes or by saying to Horncastle 'if you will only accept one solution without consultation then we wash our hands of the matter and leave the rest entirely in Horncastle's hands and without any financial participation on our part'.

Then what would happen?
Another question is how can the town hall be treated in isolation to the rest of the Wong site? It seems to me that the Wong development needs to be considered as a whole.
With regard to the proposal to carry out a poll, who will prepare the poll document, how is it to be worded, will alternatives be listed?

Finally the one positive thing that emerged from the meeting is Horncastle wishes to retain a town hall with approximately the same footprint on the Wong site.
The problem will be in the execution of Horncastle's wishes and the meeting debacle will, in my opinion, not assist Horncastle's case in the slightest.
Name and address supplied