The Freemason Tory councillors of Brighton and Hove are very reluctant to declare some of their interests online on the council's web site. Why are they so shy and loathe to let the public see what they have?

The council does its very best to make it difficult if not impossible, to look at the actual Register of Interests they hold. They try to get the online version taken as being an acceptable, honest account for all who want to see the interests of the councillors. Don't forget, the public has a right to access every council's register of interests. This doesn't suit Brighton and Hove City Council who prefer to keep things hidden for those that desire it.

Look at Steve Harmer- Strange, Freemason and a man with considerable property interests. He is a director of Grosvenor Property Lettings with a large property portfolio. The details of the properties he owns are not shown online, why is this?

Then there is Garry Pellzer Dunn, another Tory councillor. He has GPD Property Services and many property interests. Neither his involvement with GPD services, nor the properties are in the online version of the Register. Why is he allowed to keep these hidden?

Another example is Geoffrey Theobold, Freemason and a member of Brighton and Hove Civic Lodge number 5223. He is another man with considerable property interests but nothing shown onlne. Why is he so shy about having a vast property empire?

A colleague of these, Geoffrey Wells, Freemason (yet again) and another with property holdings that are not shown online in that register.

So, it can be said that a number of prominent councillors, all Tories and Freemasons are able to deny the public access to their interests online. The council does its utmost to deny people access otherwise.

On the council web site, they say that "sensitive" information can be excluded from the online site. This is defined as information which could create a risk of violence to the councillor, or someone who lives with them. On that basis their private addresses can be excluded on safety grounds. This cannot be used to justify the failure to include business and property interests however.

So we are left to speculate why these councillors want to keep their interests hidden from view. Are they given "favours" in their planning applications? Do they receive grants, or other monies from the council? Do the levels of property holdings suggest they have other monies that are not capable of explanation by legitimate means? It all smells very fishy indeed. In fact it stinks.

Brighton Eye says the public should ask what is going on!